1951-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): If I have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to move that when the house adjourns tomorrow, Wednesday, it stand adjourned until Thursday at 5.30 p.m. The reason is that the President of the French republic will address the members of both houses of parliament in this chamber at 3.30, after which there is to be a reception in the chambers of the Speaker of the Senate.
The program that has been prepared and printed provides that the president is not due to leave this building until ten minutes after five, when the Speakers of the two houses are to accompany him to the front entrance. After the joint meeting in this chamber some time will be required to remove the additional chairs and put it in order for us to proceed. Therefore if I have unanimous consent I move:
That, when this house adjourns on Wednesday, April 4. it do stand adjourned until 5.30 o'clock p.m., on Thursday, April 5, and that standing order 2 be suspended in relation thereto.
This will enable us to get through the routine proceedings and down to the orders of the day, which may then be proceeded with when the house resumes its sitting at eight o'clock.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary to say that we would expect unanimous acceptance of this motion. There will, of course, be approval for everything that is being done to indicate the warmth of the welcome we would wish to extend to the head of the French republic, between which and this country there are very close bonds.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the following reports, in English and in French:
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December 31, 1950. '
Annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the year ended December 31, 1950.
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways securities trust for the year ended December 31, 1950.
The auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1950, in respect to the Canadian National railway system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.
Copies of these reports are being distributed.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a white paper on "Supply of Basic and Building Materials in Canada, Outlook 1951", and also one on "Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook 1951".



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 190, respecting the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 174, respecting the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 175, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Western Canada.-Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East).
Bill No. 176, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Eastern Canada.-Mr. Ross (Hamilton East).
Bill No. 177, to incorporate the Mercantile and General Reinsurance Company of Canada Limited.-Mr. Cavers.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Leah Berniker Berger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Betty Suffrin Sher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Muriel Violet Marcella Barkas Sauve.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Lois Christine Flemming Foster.-Mr. Winkler.
1570	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Bill No. 182, for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Romeo Moisan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Catherine Veronica Joynt Bragdon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Sarah Alice Thompson Getzler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Grace Andersen Hallam.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Edna May Walker Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Donald George Story.-Mr. Winkler.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Moneite (Mercier):: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed with the orders of the day, I have an extremely important and urgent question to address to the Minister of Transport in my capacity as member for the most highly industrialized county in the province of Quebec.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that the St. Lawrence river, as is the case nearly every year, is now flooding the east end of the island of Montreal and has wrought considerable damage in my county? Does the government intend to do something to cope with that condition?
In order to prevent such disasters in the future, may I suggest that the government should dispatch to that part of the river, each spring, two icebreakers at least in order to break the ice-jam at the onset.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I may assure him that the Department of Transport is aware of the damages caused by the swelling of the St. Lawrence river at Montreal. As soon as that condition was brought to our attention we immediately dispatched three icebreakers to the scene. The Ernest Lapointe, the Saurel and the Lady Grey are now breaking the ice and according to the latest reports I have received the situation is improving considerably.
The hon. member may rest assured that the suggestion he made in the last part of his question will be taken into consideration by the government.
(Text):



PRESS REPORT AS TO EXPORT FROM CANADA TO POLAND THROUGH THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should
like to ask a question of the Minister of [Mr. McHraith.)

Trade and Commerce-of which I have not had an opportunity of giving him notice-concerning a report in this morning's Ottawa Citizen with regard to 400,000 pounds of wool which originated in Canada and was being shipped through the United States to Poland. Can the minister throw any additional light on this transaction that was not disclosed in the press report?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I regret to say that I am
not able to throw any light on the matter. Our records indicate that no permit -was issued in that connection, but further investigations are being made. If I find anything new, I shall be glad to announce it in the house.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 172, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


George Alexander Drew: Explain.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, as forecast in the speech from the throne, it is proposed in this bill to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act to prevent the retention of Canadian citizenship by persons who have renounced their allegiance or shown by their conduct that they are not loyal to Canada.
It is not a lengthy bill; in fact it contains but one section amending certain parts of section 19 of the present act.
Under the Naturalization Act, which was repealed with the coming into force of the Canadian Citizenship Act on January 1, 1947, there was provision, under subsection 1 of section 9 thereof, for the revocation of a certificate of naturalization by the governor in council after the minister was satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted had shown himself, by act or speech, to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty. This provision was applicable whether the offence was committed in Canada or outside of Canada.
When the Canadian Citizenship Act was being considered, it was decided to make the citizenship of a Canadian citizen, other than a natural-born Canadian citizen, liable to revocation only if the offence of disaffection or disloyalty had been committed outside of Canada, and to make it applicable in Canada only in the event of the naturalized Canadian citizen having been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction. These persons had the right to have their

cases considered by a commission, appointed under section 19 of the act. In this way their right to have a hearing was fully protected.
In recent years it has been found that a number of naturalized Canadian citizens have returned to the countries of their origin with the obvious intention of remaining there permanently and of severing their allegiance to Canada. Under present legislation, their citizenship can be revoked only after a period of not less than six years' residence outside of Canada and failure to maintain substantial connection with Canada.
In some cases a number of naturalized persons have asked, while still in Canada, to have their certificates of naturalization or citizenship cancelled on the ground that they no longer wish to retain Canadian citizenship. There is nothing in the present legislation covering this type of disaffection.
So far my remarks have had reference to the revocation of the citizenship of persons other than natural-born Canadian citizens. At present a Canadian citizen by birth loses his citizenship only on the voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality. Very serious thought, however, has been given to the question of the revocation of the citizenship of persons, whether naturalized or natural-born, who take an oath or make an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, whether they were residing in or out of Canada at the time of taking such action.
In view of the conditions which I have stated, and for obvious reasons of security, it is deemed desirable to introduce certain new grounds for revocation of citizenship.
Under present legislation, revocation may take place only if the naturalized Canadian citizen has been residing outside of Canada for a period of not less than six years and has failed to maintain substantial connection with Canada. The proposed amendment provides for revocation after a residence of two years in a country of which the Canadian citizen was a national or citizen at any time prior to his becoming a Canadian citizen or being naturalized in Canada. This would allow more speedy disposition of cases where naturalized persons return to their country of origin and lose substantial connection with Canada.
There is, further, an extension of the present provision for revocation for disloyalty. At present, revocation is possible where a person out of Canada shows himself "by act or speech" to be "disaffected or disloyal" to His Majesty or, if in Canada, is guilty of treason or sedition. The latter phraseology, especially, is too narrow. It does not, for instance, cover persons convicted of offences
Canadian Citizenship Act under the Official Secrets Act. It is proposed in this amendment to allow revocation for disaffection and disloyalty out of Canada, and for persons in Canada who are found guilty of sedition, espionage, treason or similar offences.
Subsection 3 of section 1 of the bill provides for the revocation of the citizenship of all categories of citizens whether naturalized or natural-born.
There is no substantial change in paragraph (a) from the present legislation, which provides for the revocation of the citizenship of a person who, by a voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country, whilst in Canada.
Paragraph (b) of subsection 3 is new. It provides for revocation in the case of persons who take an oath or make an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; this would apply whether the persons were in or out of Canada.
There is, finally, provision in paragraph
(c)	of subsection 3 for the revocation of the citizenship of those persons who make declarations renouncing their Canadian citizenship. This amendment would have the effect of legalizing the action of a person who renounces his Canadian citizenship, whether in or out of Canada.
The government is of the opinion that the amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act which are proposed in this bill are essential to the welfare and security of Canada. I wish to make it clear, however, that the rights of any person, the revocation of whose citizenship might be considered under any one of these proposed amendments, are fully protected under that part of section 19 of the citizenship act which provides, upon request, for a formal hearing by a commission constituted for the purpose by the governor in council. It is not proposed in this bill to deprive a person of his citizenship without granting him his right to have his case considered by this tribunal.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this bill, so far as it goes, makes it possible to deal with certain acts of disloyalty, but it does not deal effectively with many of the things that are being done by people who have come to Canada, have become naturalized Canadians and are now abusing the rights of that citizenship in an effort to undermine our democratic system. I shall support the bill before the house because the terms are good so far as they go. It is appropriate, however, in dealing with the principle now under consideration, to point out the advantage of going a great deal further; because the
1572	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act government itself could put forward appropriate amendments, if they were considered advisable, to carry the application of the bill to a wider field.
As has been pointed out by the minister, a number of people who have come to Canada have become naturalized and have then returned to their own country with the apparent intention of staying there. I am not objecting to their loss of citizenship. I should think that under those circumstances the loss of citizenship would be almost automatic. There is, however, a consideration that should be borne in mind. Some of those very people are now returning to Canada more completely disillusioned about communism-and we know it is communism that is under consideration-than anyone else in this country. I suggest that we should not disregard the possibility that some of the most effective exponents of our free democracy may be those who have mistakenly returned to the slave states and have seen what is actually going on there at the present time. That, however, is an observation that would apply only to a limited number. I must say that I am much more concerned about those of other than Canadian birth who have come here and been naturalized and are staying here and seeking to destroy our system, than I am with those who leave; in fact I think we should welcome the departure of many of those who come and do this.
It would seem to me that when an amendment is being considered which will widen the possibility of denying the rights of citizenship of those who leave Canada, or those who make declarations that amount to disloyalty to Canada or the abandonment of their citizenship, we should also consider the advisability of widening the basis upon which citizenship may be withdrawn.
I would of course wish that we were discussing this on a very much wider basis than it can be discussed upon the second reading of this bill. What I would prefer to be discussing at the present time is an amendment to the Criminal Code dealing effectively with communism in this country under a properly defined section of the code. In saying that I wish to make it perfectly clear that neither in my remarks now nor on any other occasion have I ever suggested that communism should be dealt with by name. That would not be effective. What I am suggesting is that the activities designed to undermine our democratic system in the service of a foreign power can be defined and should be defined in an amendment to the Criminal Code, which would apply to everyone, whether bom outside of Canada or within our


own boundaries. That, however, is not the subject now under consideration, and I therefore confine my remarks to possible amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act, and the withdrawal of the citizenship which has been extended to those who have come to Canada and who leave here.
There are many people who have become naturalized Canadians who will not come within the amendments now before us. Let us take some of the examples. At the present time there are weekly publications in different parts of Canada which are published in languages other than English or French. They are generally described as foreign language newspapers. I am referring to those of the foreign language newspapers which are regular and vigorous advocates of communist doctrine. I might say that my remarks would apply with equal force to any publications which advocated what might be regarded as nazi, fascist or any other non-democratic doctrines. However, it is communism with which we are mainly concerned at the moment.
Men who have come to Canada and have been naturalized, and through that naturalization have gained the rights of free citizens of Canada, are week by week doing their utmost to undermine the confidence and the faith of newly-arrived citizens of this country by holding up to contempt and ridicule those institutions upon which we rely for the preservation of our freedom, and are making attacks on all those who are seeking to maintain the vigour and the strength of democracy itself. These people, given the rights of citizens, freely urge the support of those against whom young Canadians are fighting at this very hour. If that is not treachery, I do not know what can be described as treachery. Nevertheless it does not come within the legal definition of treason contained in the Criminal Code.
I am sure that in the Department of Justice there are those who are competent to draft an amendment to the Criminal Code which, without using the word "communism", or "fascism", or "nazism", or any other definitive doctrinaire word, will at the same time define with clarity disloyalty to Canada of that kind.
I believe that people who are doing that should be dealt with in the manner that is contemplated by the amendments now before us dealing with those who leave Canada to go back to their native land, or dealing with those who are convicted under laws now in force. To me it seems strangely inconsistent that we should be, on the one hand, awaiting a budget which call for the expenditure of $1,600 million for defence-defence against

only one possible enemy-and yet at the same time dealing with that enemy and his representatives in our midst with such gentleness and with such reluctance to recognize the danger for what it really is.
As I said before, I can only, within the terms of this act, deal with the citizenship of those who have come from other lands and become Canadians by naturalization. But the people who are trying to destroy democracy in Canada include within their ranks many of those who have obtained citizenship in that way.
Across this country there are communist organizations trying to undermine faith in Canadian democracy in many ways, not only through foreign language newspapers, but by means of the moving picture, by means of publications sold quite openly, and by other devices long employed for affecting people's minds and people's loyalty.
As the Department of Justice well knows, there are moving pictures in circulation in this country which have no other purpose than to spread propaganda in support of communism. In many instances that is being done by those who were born in other lands, have come to Canada and are now citizens of this country. There are also others within the same category who are running schools for young Canadians where disloyalty is the purpose of everything that is done. There again it should be possible to deal effectively with such people, just as effectively as with those who leave Canada to go back to the country to which these people are now expressing their loyalty.
I would urge the minister to give consideration to extending those definitions still farther. While it is true that there is not an amendment to the Criminal Code now before us, it is possible to introduce a definition of conduct of that kind within the Canadian Citizenship Act itself, which could be dealt with by the courts. If the Department of Justice is not prepared to put before this house an amendment to the Criminal Code, then I suggest that an amendment such as I have mentioned be introduced to the Canadian Citizenship Act; that a penalty be provided under which those guilty of conduct of that kind can be brought before the courts, and, if there is a conviction, citizenship should be lost in accordance with the procedure outlined in the amendments now before us.
I do not think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will question my statement when I repeat that I believe the officials of the Department of Justice do regard themselves as competent to draft such an amendment; because I am under the impression that he has such an amendment actually
Canadian Citizenship Act drafted, although he has not yet been prepared to put it before the house. I mention that only with the thought that it is most commendable that a condition of this kind should have led to the preparation of such an amendment. I hope that if an amendment to the Criminal Code is not made at this time, a further amendment to this act will be introduced when the bill is in committee.
In the event that anyone might suggest that others in the house should propose the amendment, my answer would be that if an amendment of this kind is to be effective it should be one put forward by the government. Administration is just as important as enactment; and if the administration of an amendment of that kind is to be effective, then such amendment must be in terms the government will carry out.
While I approve the amendments so far as they go, and will support them, I believe that the time has come for us to act in accordance with the scale and magnitude of the task we are undertaking, and that an emergency which calls for the type of legislation the government has already presented to the house for purposes of defence is one which should call for legislation that will deal more effectively with these traitors in our midst.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne it was announced that there were to be certain changes in the citizenship act. One or two of us perhaps had our own fears as to what those changes might be; but, having seen the legislation I can say now and at once that we are in agreement with what appears to be the purpose of the bill. After all it is only reasonable that when an individual renounces his citizenship he should officially lose it. It is only reasonable that when someone affirms allegiance to another country he should lose his citizenship rights in Canada. There can be no objection whatever to that.
However, there is a vital principle in the bill which I suggest requires some clarification from the minister, and should be discussed to some extent. We are told that an individual loses his citizenship when he is convicted in some court of competent jurisdiction of any offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty. Those are fairly sweeping terms. I remember well that when the original citizenship act was before the house there was much discussion about a section similar to the one I have indicated. One of the things upon which members of all parties insisted at that time was that there should be equality of treatment for all Canadians, no matter in which
1574

Canadian Citizenship Act part of Canada they might live. It is conceivable that under this legislation there may not be that same equality. Appeal is to be permitted to ten different courts in the ten provinces. It is possible that the judges presiding over those courts will range from men of a most liberal turn of mind to those of the most reactionary. It is possible we may have ten different standards of disaffection; it is possible we may have ten different standards of disloyalty. In effect what we shall have will be ten different standards of Canadianism. That is something I would deplore, because it is the intention of all of us to try to secure equality of treatment for all.
There is another matter which has been discussed before, and which, some conceive to be an aspect of discrimination between those who are natural-born Canadians and those who have adopted Canada as their home. There are those who feel that the degree of punishment for the same offence should be precisely the same, and that the most serious punishment one could inflict upon anyone would be to take away his citizenship. That is the punishment meted out only to immigrant Canadians.
I am an immigrant, but I must say I view the situation in a somewhat different light. I came here of my own free will. I came to Canada because I wanted to. I knew what my rights of citizenship and my -obligations were going to be. I knew what my duties and privileges were going to be; and I was determined, so far as humanly possible, to live within the law of the land. I am convinced that from my point of view, and that of many others, no more serious hurt could befall one than to lose his citizenship. Nevertheless I believe that if an immigrant comes to this country and willingly and knowingly violates the law so that he is guilty of treason, he should lose that citizenship. There are others, among my colleagues, who were born in Canada, who would disagree with me.
The question arises as to exactly what disloyalty is. There are members of the house who advocated that Canada should be a republic. They would want to do away with the monarchy. They would abolish kings, and all the pomp and circumstance we associate with courts and kings. I disagree with them on that. However, I maintain they are entitled to their opinions, and if their opinions were to have the support of a majority I would accept the decision, as a good democratic citizen.
But is that being disloyal to His Majesty? Would one be disloyal if he were to advocate the setting up of a republic? Is there disaffection there, or is there disaffection when,


during the Easter recess, I go back to my constituents and raise the very devil about what the government is doing or is not doing? It is conceivable that under certain governments that might be regarded as sowing disaffection. On the other hand we must remember that during the thirties there were Canadian citizens who went back to nazi Germany and who, after serving a year or two in the German forces, came back to this country. In my opinion those men were traitors; yet the legislation was not adequate enough to cover them then. It is possible we have the same condition today among those who acknowledge allegiance to soviet Russia. In my opinion those people are also traitors in just as great measure.
What we want above all is to safeguard the citizen from the growing encroachment of government. I do not think that encroachment can be helped; it is one of those things which will happen. But it means we have to be doubly sure to see that the citizen is protected. It may be said: Well, after all, we have a minister who is a man of honesty and integrity, and upon whom we can depend. That may be so. I should be quite content to take the minister's word that he will carry out this legislation as honestly and faithfully as he can. But there is no guarantee that a minister of a similar calibre is going to follow him.
I recall the history of the 1919 strike in Winnipeg, when we had a somewhat different type of minister at Ottawa-and I am referring to Mr. Arthur Meighen. I remember well that on the occasion when ten Canadian citizens were arrested in Winnipeg and thrown into Stony Mountain prison, Mr. Meighen sent a wire to Winnipeg which read as follows:
Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and detention at Stony Mountain, I feel that rapid deportation is the best course, now that the arrests have been made; and later we can consider ratification.
That was a most iniquitous thing to do. What guarantee is there that under some other minister it might not happen again? What protection is there for the citizen? That is what we are particularly interested in.
I remember during that same general strike in Winnipeg, when Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, the founder of this party, was thrown into prison for four or five days because he had the audacity to quote from the book of Isaiah in the streets of Winnipeg. That was then considered to be sedition. At times hysteria grows in any country until it becomes a serious menace. We hope that something like that will not happen again but we have to safeguard against it. Where the courts decide

that an individual has been guilty of disaffection or disloyalty the minister is to have the last word as to whether or not that citizen will lose his citizenship. As I said before, there is no more serious circumstance that could befall any Canadian.
The minister has the right to decide, and it is no reflection on the minister when I say that all of us who are elected members of parliament know what it is to be the victim of political pressures and political urges. While I am content to leave this right with the minister, I am not content to leave with him the right to have the last word. We suggest for the earnest consideration of the minister, partly as a safeguard for himself and partly as a safeguard for those who might be accused, that the individual should have a final right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. That court is above all political pressures. That court is impartial. Let that court decide whether or not the individual should suffer the most grievous penalty of losing his citizenship. Were we to do that, then I think we would be restoring some of that equality for all which we desire. I hope that the minister will give this suggestion his most earnest consideration.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually take part in a debate of this kind, but to me these amendments are very simple. A man cannot be a citizen of two countries and be honourable and honest with both, just as the old book says that you cannot serve two masters. If a man is found to be using language, either in the press or vocally, that shows his disloyalty to Canada, he has no business to be a citizen of Canada. If he becomes a citizen of a foreign country, why should he want to be a citizen of Canada at the same time? I do not think we need to spend much time discussing these amendments, because they are so simple.
But I do know of one difficulty that is faced by a man who lives in the city of Fort William, which is considered to be made up of intelligent people. This man has raised a family but has not been able to obtain Canadian citizenship. I have always thought that after a person had been in Canada for twenty years, and had a good character, there would be nothing against his becoming a citizen; but this man has found that he cannot become a citizen of Canada unless he can answer all the questions.
I know a man who has lived thirty years in Canada and has reared a family that is a credit to Canada. They are all good athletes, good students and good university men, and yet the father is not able to be a citizen. I realize that these amendments do not cover 80709-1014
Canadian Citizenship Act such a situation, but I hope the minister will find a way to overcome difficulties of this kind.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill and to make a few remarks pertaining to it. So far as I can see, the chief purpose of the bill is to relieve a very few people of rights and privileges which by their own actions they indicate they do not value very highly. I say there are but a very few. I take this opportunity to reassure the great masses of new Canadians whose citizenship is cherished by possession that there is nothing in this bill that in any way prejudices their status.
As I say, the bill deals with two small groups of minorities. The first group consists of those who returned voluntarily to their native country to resettle and who endeavoured for their own purposes to retain some of the advantages they had gained by Canadian naturalization. What they want is dual citizenship; they want a privileged position. I cannot say that I have much sympathy for them. Dualism has been resolved in this country and we cannot tolerate it abroad. They cannot have it both ways.
No matter what inducements have been offered, no matter how rosy the picture was painted in order to get them to return to their country of origin, they automatically accepted life according to the dictates of the existing regime in that particular country, and the principal effects of such life, including a police state and forced labour, were well known to the most innocent of them. It scarcely seems reasonable for them to expect that their Canadian naturalization will exempt them from some of the unpleasantnesses that they found when they returned to the country of their origin. I imagine that they supplied more than their share of headaches to those countries as well as to ours, and this bill will reduce those headaches from six years to two years.
I said that there were two groups of people covered by this bill with whom I had. little sympathy. If I have little sympathy for the first group, I have none at all for the second. They are the people who sought and acquired the privileges and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship but who are really the servants of another state. In the course of that service they have betrayed the Canadian state. When their offence has been proved I can see no justification for their continued enjoyment of the citizenship which they have acquired, a citizenship which, by the way, not only gives them a fair trial and just sentence.
Because some of the persons involved in the recent espionage cases were foreign born,

Canadian Citizenship Act a regrettable shadow of suspicion has fallen inevitably on a large and intensely loyal section of the community. I say inevitably, because in all times of international stress there are suspicions that arise, and there is a flaming and a fading of tensions from time to time. I should like to repeat what I said on April 9, 1946, and I quote:
There have been those whose loyalty has wavered, who have imagined, in their confusion and in their woolly thinking, that there is a higher loyalty than that to Canada; who have not rated their acquired citizenship on so exalted a level as most of us have placed it. Recently we have been shocked to our very roots when we have had to face up to unpleasant realities which upset our comfortable and complacent thoughts and habits. There is no need to be alarmed. There is no point in hysteria, and there is no reason for losing our perspective. We have been tough with our enemies from without. We only need apply the rule of law in order to be tough with our enemies from within. That is what the law is for.
I went on to say:
Let me say a further word about loyalties. It is well that we look to the structure of our own nest before we inquire too deeply to see who has fouled it. Loyalty is a coin with two sides. On the obverse is the attachment of the citizen to the state; on the reverse are the service and inspiration which the state gives to the citizen. I have no use for traitors or for those who accept the protection and benefits of the state and then sell it down the river. I entertain no belief that loyalty can be divided, so much to the state and so much to another organism. To me, as to other members of this house, treachery in all its forms is despicable, and the oath of allegiance is not double talk.
About all I can do at the present time is broadcast the reassurance that disloyalty is the rarest kind of exception; that those who have won their citizenship through risk and labour tend to cherish it at least as highly as those to whom it has come as a birthright. But in the opinion of many the disloyalty of one reflects upon the integrity of the many. For this and other reasons I believe new Canadians as a whole should welcome this measure, which is designed to penalize and discourage betrayal. All those who have spoken already have indicated that they approach such legislation with one eye to the special dangers of the moment and the other upon the preservation of the traditional freedoms. One of those freedoms, of course, is the right to advocate social and economic changes; and most of us, no matter what our own views, will champion the right of the other man to express his. The house will note that paragraph (f) reads:
... if in Canada, has, by a court of competent jurisdiction, been convicted of any offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty.
Hon. members will realize that a court will deal with this problem. To indicate that there is an awareness in high judicial places of what is going on in this country and in the world, I want to quote from a great judge

and a great Canadian, Mr. Justice Ivan C. Rand. Speaking in Toronto on March 30 he delivered the annual lecture sponsored by the Hillman foundation, established in 1946 by the amalgamated clothing workers of America in memory of the late president of the union, Sidney Hillman:
Mr. Justice Rand stressed the duty of judges to protect the nonconformist "against popular clamour, against any sort of subservience to that clamour or the betrayal from any quarter of our inheritance.
Our liberties are largely the accomplishments of such men. North America has been born of rebellion, rebellion in government, in church, in social organizations."
He went on to say:
The courts were constantly faced by the problem of determining the boundaries of individual freedom -the point at which individual action threatens the general security.
This could be determined by application of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of man's despotism. It was insufficient to define freedoms without granting them to every citizen. The rule of law was the uncompromising rule of principle as against expediency.
He went on further:
Freedom of speech was also threatened by the discovery that it often was not exercised in good faith. Deceit had become an instrument in the propagation of an ideology, raising questions of the greatest difficulty in determining the point at which liberties must give way in order to maintain the wider security.
It is obvious to everyone in this house that the chief targets of this bill will be the communists. It is important, however, to make it very clear that the section is directed against them not because they are advocates of Marxism but because those it penalizes have become agents of a foreign state. It is one thing, for instance, for a man to attempt to convince his fellows that living conditions in the city of Omsk are better than those in Oshawa. That strikes me as a legitimate undertaking, though a bit foolish and I would presume rather thankless; but it is altogether different for a man to give his full devotion to another state and actively conspire against the country from which as a citizen he claims protection and all the benefits it may have in store for him.
Under this bill men will not be punished for their political beliefs but rather for their political treachery. I believe this bill is intended to make it very tough for traitors, which is as it should be.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must say a few words on this bill. I cannot help feeling that it must have been with the greatest reluctance that a Liberal government felt it necessary to introduce a bill along these lines, just as it must be with the greatest reluctance that Liberal members will feel it necessary to

support it. I think one could safely change the word "Liberal" in that sentence to "Canadian" and it would still apply.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has so well pointed out, that we are faced with legislation of this kind at the present time is entirely due to the activities of those whom we lump together under the name of communists. The principle of this bill is not new, but the principle in the original bill is becoming broader all the time. Despite our hatred of communism and all it stands for; despite the danger which communism presents to us, we must not lose sight of other dangers that may be even more alarming. There is a great deal of talk throughout the country, and justifiably, about subversive activities. I rather wish we heard less of the word "subversive" and more of that very plain word "traitor" which was used a moment ago by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), because that word leaves no doubt whatever as to what is meant.
Because one sees dangers in the principles which underlie this necessary bill, that in no way means that one has the slightest sympathy for those subversive actors whom I prefer to call traitors; and I trust that we in this house may continue to separate the two sides, one the necessity of combating that sort of activity, and the other the necessity of protecting those things in our own mind which are our main justification for opposing totalitarianism in all its forms. I was bom and brought up in Canada in the days when we were British subjects and proud of it. I was brought up to regard the fact that I was a British subject as one of the most remarkable attributes which I could ever have; one of my privileges and one which imposed consequent duties.
In recent years the term "British subject" has become, for most of us, "Canadian citizen", and the same love of the term and respect for its implications I hope applies. There are those who have become Canadian citizens voluntarily. Perhaps they are entitled to more credit than I am. I did not become a Canadian citizen voluntarily but by an act of God. Those who have come to us from other shores have become Canadian citizens by their own choice. I assume the majority of them also place a value upon their Canadian citizenship, although most of us have taken occasion from time to time to regret that we did not emphasize that value sufficiently at the time we allowed them to acquire citizenship.
What I am leading up to, Mr. Speaker, is that I have, we all have, the greatest sympathy with the need and intent of this bill.
Canadian Citizenship Act There is not one of us who is not going to say "aye" when it comes to voting on the measure which is at least partially intended to protect this country against its enemies. But there is, sir-let us admit it-building up in this country a mass fear. Please note that I deliberately did not use the word "hysteria". I do not think there will be built up in Canada a mass hysteria, but a mass fear is being built up in this country. I am a victim of it. I believe that, to a greater or lesser extent, we all are. It is a fear to some extent of the unknown, which is a very dangerous fear because that type of fear is catching. It is, therefore, quite possible that we may fall into a trap and be carried too far. I do not want to lay myself open to a charge of international disrespect, but I suggest there are cases in the world today of mass hysteria from which we might take some lessons.
My purpose in speaking at this time in connection with a bill which takes away something from the individual is to urge upon the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the government of Canada that the greatest care be taken in the administration of this act. I know that hearings will be held in every case before a man can lose his citizenship. Mr. Speaker, what I hope not to see is dozens of hearings across the country because some well-intentioned individual thinks that someone else is not as loyal as he should be. None of us will object if we proceed expeditiously and relentlessly against those who are guilty, but heaven protect us from a wave of witch-hunting. We are not ready for it now, but I honestly fear that this wave of what I call mass fear might bring us to the position where we were almost ready to indulge in a witch-hunt, and that would be a great calamity in itself.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that Canada believes in the principle that it is better for some guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer when he was not guilty. It is the innocent person, not the traitor, with whom I am concerned in connection with the broadening of these powers for taking away Canadian citizenship once lawfully acquired. I would say to the government, and through them to those who will administer this act as well as to those who may be considering amendments to the act: Do not make it too easy to deprive a man of his citizenship, because for once I agree with the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart): there is nothing that we can give of greater value than Canadian citizenship.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the beginning I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the

Canadian Citizenship Act hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Applewhaite) and to say that, like him, I hope and believe that we shall not give way to hysteria or witch-hunting, the evils of which he has not exaggerated in the least. I should like also to associate myself with what was said by the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and to join with him in saying that I hope what we call new Canadians will not regard this as in any way derogatory to their status. I would even go beyond what the member for Spadina said. I believe that we will find in many new Canadians a prizing of their citizenship perhaps far beyond the value which those of us who have always been Canadians attach to it. I have met many new Canadians who have made me feel that if there was the same devotion to this country on the part of a large number of the old citizens, it might be a much better place.
It was only today that I carefully read this paragraph in the speech from the throne, and I observed the use of this wording:
Appropriate amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act will be introduced to prevent the retention of Canadian citizenship . . .
It is only today that I realize the use of the word "retention" is intended to indicate that it applies to those who have received it and, therefore, not to natural-born Canadians. It is with regard to that general question that I should like to make a few comments along the lines taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), as to whether notwithstanding our approval of this bill we might not like to see something wider dealing with the situation.
I observe that when we debated this question a year ago I quoted a remark made by the minister of external affairs which he had made during the summer of 1949. At page 2130 of Hansard for May 3, 1950, I find the following:
He . . .
That is the minister of external affairs.
. . . told the Montreal Rotary club the domestic threat of communism must be met . . .
Here are his words.
. . . "by strengthening, if necessary, our Criminal Code, against actions which threaten the security of the state.
I quote that and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to the Criminal Code made this afternoon by the leader of the opposition. I wish to stress what we have stressed before, that we are not advocating a witch-hunt. We are not advocating any attempt to penalize people for what, in Japan, they called dangerous thoughts. The only thing we are talking about is overt acts. The point we question is whether the code is adequate. Having regard to the fact that
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
nothing has been done since the minister of external affairs made that remark, I think it would be relevant to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) to tell us this afternoon whether, in fact, the government has decided that nothing along that line needs to be done.
There is another thing that is a good deal in my mind, and it came out in the debate a year ago. I do not think communism would be nearly so dangerous if it only appealed to evil people, people whom we ordinarily characterize as undesirable. The thing that bothers me about it-I attempted to bring this up a year ago-is that it has a strange appeal to people whom, from many points of view, we must concede to be high-minded, good people, however completely misled they seem to be. I quoted at that time briefly, and I will quote again, from a book called "The God that Failed", and which brought out what I think is a fact and what I think accentuates our danger. I quote briefly from page 6 of the introduction which was written by the well-known English leader Crossman. Speaking of the intellectuals-and there were six intellectuals who contributed to this book -he asked this question:
How could these intellectuals accept the dogmatism of Stalinism? The answer is to be found scattered through the pages which follow. For the intellectual, material comforts are relatively unimportant; what he cares about is spiritual freedom.
And again Crossman says:
-the communist novice . . . wearied and worried by the privilege of freedom-getting relief by subjecting himself to the canon law of the Kremlin.
I read that quotation to the house partly because it called up to my mind an incident that happened to me a short time ago when I was visited by one of what I suppose you would call the followers of Mr. Endicott. He and a couple of other people appeared at my room one day and I had a short talk with them, and remonstrated with them for what seemed to me to be the extraordinary folly of their attitude. I might have been occupying my time more profitably, I expect. When they raised the question whether we were justified in holding the views we do hold about Russian despotism, I said: "What do you make of the case of Czechoslovakia?" One of these young men said to me: "Would you be surprised to know that I was at a demonstration in Prague last summer? We were all together, students, police and others, and we were celebrating in honour of peace. What would you think about that?" I said: "I would think it was one of the finest bits of arranged propaganda that I had ever heard of in my life." There you are, Mr. Speaker. There were young men, perhaps more or less sincere, who had been completely taken in by that propaganda.

I have another thing here that I want to read to the house because it indicates the kind of thing that is going on and which to me makes it much more serious than it would be, as I said a few minutes ago, if it was the kind of thing that appealed only to the hard-boiled people of the type that we always regard as undesirable, who are selfish and who are ready to break the law for their own ends. I hold in my hand a publication called The Frontier. It is a new publication. I do not know much about it. I think it is a respectable publication. I think so partly perhaps because the issue previous to the one I hold in my hand argued that we should have regard to the common-sense laws of economics when we were thinking about the various social measures that we should pass. That seemed to me to be a sensible remark. Perhaps I am therefore predisposed to regard this as a sensible publication. It is called The Frontier, "a Christian commentary on the common life". Here is the monthly letter, February, 1951. It has some things to say about communism and its appeal which I present to the house because I have to confess that I was extremely slow to believe that communism had in it the danger that it has. I was slow to believe that the kind of people one meets and finds agreeable, and with whom we share many common thoughts, could have a department of their life in which they were able to do things which to me were almost incredible. I read briefly from this publication:
Current Christian literature about communism, including some that comes from missionary societies and notably from China, has a good deal to say about its revivalist power. Converts to communism, especially the young, embrace it with a zeal and ardour, for the works as well as the faith, that often greatly impress Christian observers. They see college students, boys and girls at school, and unlettered workers responding to the appeal of what they believe is a message of world salvation and undergoing a new, severe discipline with complete self-abandonment.
Then I skip a few lines and continue:
But it is also important to get this fact of communist fervour in perspective and not to be romantic about it: for it remains true that what is propagated as a messianic faith marks the bid of a minority for political domination, and only a minority within that minority consists of sacrificial zealots and idealists. George Orwell wrote-and he had some first-hand knowledge of the matter-that a revolutionary is oftener than not a social climber with a bomb in his pocket.
I have thought it worth while to mention this because it seems to me that those of us who find it difficult to believe the kind of things that go on should remind ourselves occasionally of such facts as what I have just read. I always remember a German refugee, who had become a Canadian citizen and who had a profound loathing of the
Canadian Citizenship Act nazis, saying to me in June, 1940, just when the war really broke out: "Regard nothing as fantastic". By that he meant we could expect almost anything to be done. He was thinking particularly of sabotage. Incidentally, I have always thought that we owe a great deal to the police during those subsequent years for the fact that so little was done. But I mention that because I think it comes back to the point that I raised at the outset: whether in fact there is a broader situation here that we have not wholly dealt with. A phrase was used this afternoon, I think by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), referring to these people as agents of a foreign state. I confess that to me it is often unreal- something I have to pinch myself to remind myself of-that no doubt one is meeting every day and, for all one knows, perhaps eating at the same table with-I am not referring to the House of Commons-people who might be described in that phrase. I therefore say to the minister, it seems to me that what is being done is sound, although there may be points of detail that should be amended. But I put to him this broader question, and it is really the same question put by my leader: Is he satisfied and is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), whose words I quoted although they are now more than a year old, satisfied that nothing further needs to be done beyond this rather minor and limited action which is now being taken?


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would not rise and speak in this debate unless I thought I had something to contribute to it. In that respect I fancy that I am the same as those who have already spoken on this bill. Much has been said this afternoon in respect of certain phases of citizenship rights which prove perhaps to be disloyal to His Majesty the King. It has always occurred to me that the time to nip disloyalty in the bud is before the bud begins to bloom. In that respect I therefore think that we have reason to be particularly careful as to the type of people or, shall I say, the attitudes of the people to whom we grant citizenship. I am quite cognizant of the fact that the government has safeguarded this matter to some considerable extent in its present legislation. I have, however, one suggestion to make in respect of that particular matter. I know of course that a person coming to this country from some other country cannot just suddenly pick up and become a citizen. There are certain rules, regulations and procedures to follow, and he should not be given his citizenship until it is pretty well proven to the authorities that he is worthy to become a citizen. My suggestion, however,

Canadian Citizenship Act is that there should be a number of citizens who sponsor the application of one desiring to become a citizen. I would go slightly further. I would suggest even that the application be given some notice in the press. I would go so far as to say that the names of those who are sponsoring the application should appear in the notice. I would go one step further and say that those names, together with the applicant's name, should appear not only in the official publication, which is the Canada Gazette, but in some more widely circulated periodical, preferably the daily press in the particular community in which the person lives.
The reason I am making these suggestions is that I do not think one who may be accused of disloyalty or disaffection is perhaps entirely to blame. A man is in a sad state of affairs when he has no friends. I am of the opinion that his friends, and particularly those who would have to sponsor his application for citizenship, must bear at least part of the responsibility of what might turn out to be disloyalty or disaffection.
I am passing that suggestion on to the minister. I notice that during the debate he is taking notes, and I should like to have him express his views in respect of the suggestion.
As I see the bill there are just one or two further comments that I would care to make. One is respecting the fact that when disaffection has been proved the person loses his citizenship. I should like to dwell on that for just a moment. To me, and to the most of us, citizenship as Canadians is a very precious thing. On the other hand I should like to venture this rather modified observation. What advantages are there in citizenship? That may be a rather striking observation, but let us examine it carefully. A person comes to this country. He enjoys the courtesy of Canada by being able to stay in this country; and just so long as he behaves himself he is permitted to stay. He can invest his money; he can go into business. Under certain conditions he can seek employment, and he can enjoy all the rights of citizenship except perhaps the right of the franchise and the right to hold public office.
Looking at it in that way I am wondering whether the loss of citizenship is such a great penalty to impose upon one who is disloyal to the country. Just what would it matter to him anyway? Therefore I am inclined to agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that some more drastic steps should be taken to deal with those who are disloyal, or, in the words of the bill, are convicted of an offence involving disaffection


to His Majesty, or which might be interpreted as disloyalty to our particular way of life. I recall as an illustration of what I am talking about carrying on an election campaign.
Some of us have been through a number of elections. I recall that in this particular campaign I had one man who was a particular opponent of the position which our party took. I am not saying that he was an opposition candidate. I do not want to leave that impression. No, he acted purely within what I would suppose to be his rights, namely, the right of any citizen to be able to express himself as our right of free speech gives him. But he followed me to some of my meetings. He tried to cause trouble. He was a vigorous opponent of what I was trying to proclaim. And after the campaign got well under way, in fact it was almost terminated, I began to wonder whether or not the chap was going to decrease my expected majority. I began to get a little bit disturbed. Someone came to me and said: "Oh, Hansell, you do not need to be afraid of him. Why, don't you know that man is not even a Canadian citizen." I was rather surprised at that. I do not mean to imply now that he came from some-oh, well I will put it this way. The gentleman was an American. He was farming in our part of the country and had farmed there for a good many years. It was taken for granted that he was a Canadian.
I found that he was not a citizen and never intended to become a citizen; yet here he was taking all the advantages of citizenship, even to entering into the position of influencing public opinion in an election campaign.


Mr. Coldwell:: And breaking the law.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, he did not vote, of
course.


Major James William Coldwell: He must not take an active part in an election.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, he was taking part to
the extent that he was supporting one of the other candidates. I just cite that as an illustration. I am not going to say that he broke the law. I am not going to say that he did anything particularly harmful. He was just a little bit better able to campaign than some other citizens in that particular community may have been, that is all. I am only pointing to the illustration to show that even though a person is not a citizen of Canada he can enjoy all the rights of citizenship perhaps with the exception of the franchise and the holding of certain public offices.
I go a step further and say that what will make citizens really proud of their citizenship is to make effective in Canada our

particular way of life, so that the citizens of Canada can enjoy the freedom we profess, and enjoy it with that standard of prosperity and quality of living that this country, with its vast wealth and with our free democratic concept, is able to give its citizens.
Before taking my seat I wish to make only two further observations, and I make them on the basis of what was said a short time ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). He delivered what I considered a most excellent speech, one with which I agree almost one hundred per cent. I cannot say I agree the full one hundred per cent because, of course, he does not belong to my party. For that reason I shall have to depreciate my agreement with him to the extent of a fraction of one per cent at least.
However, he did bring out a point in connection with the interpretation of disaffection. I fear that there is a weakness in the measure in that respect. After all, under this measure a minister of the crown will have the final decision. I do not suppose this government would be guilty of what I am about to suggest, and I am quite certain the minister would not, but the interpretation of the section could be broad enough to hold a club over the head of any citizen who might oppose vigorously some principle or policy His Majesty's advisers might be pursuing.
I recall the early days of the movement this group represents. During the days from 1930 to 1935, when we were proposing monetary reform and were exposing the iniquities of this burdensome debt-creating monetary system, some of our opponents were so bitter that they declared publicly some of us should be locked up because we were proposing things that would upset entirely our whole economic system.
Some may smile. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) smiles, and I hope he does so because he believes such a proposal to be ridiculous. I thought he was going to answer and say that he did think it was ridiculous; however, he remains silent. Therefore I shall say for him that it is ridiculous.
We can say what we like about communism and about those people who are now at the head of the peace movement but I am convinced that some of them are conscientious in their approach to the problem. They lean over backwards in their pacifism, and they have been imbued with the ideas they now pursue. Whether it be they or whether it be other persons who are opposed to the status quo, such people are going to be looked
Canadian Citizenship Act upon with some suspicion. Who knows but that the interpretation of this section involving disaffection might not be so wide that it would affect the free expression of our people. I think the minister might give some consideration to that point-and no doubt he has, because he would not be presenting the bill if he had not.
I shall conclude by supporting the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North that there should be some final court of appeal, even to the extent of appealing a decision by the minister. Such a course would remove the matter completely from the political arena, and would leave it with our courts, so that justice could be rendered on the merits of any particular case. I support the hon. member in his suggestion, and I hope the minister will express himself in regard to it.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, it was stated by an hon. member opposite that it would have been difficult for the Liberal party to ask this house to enact this kind of legislation. As far as I am concerned, had I been a member of the cabinet, I should not have hesitated to ask the house to enact it, chiefly because I -am a staunch believer in Liberal principles. I would have been pleased to suggest to this house that the facilities which are given people from abroad to enter this country and to enjoy the rights of Canadian citizenship are too great and ought to be curtailed, for in certain cases, one may question those people's intentions.
I think this is an excellent bill, and I have no objection to conferring upon the hon. the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), or the governor in council, the prerogative or authority to decide to whom this amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act shall apply.
Those who in this house or elsewhere advocate a distinctly Canadian flag and national anthem are often considered as faddists. But such is not the case. In fact, those symbols have a very deep meaning for the Canadian citizen, and especially for the person who wishes to become a Canadian citizen. They help him understand how proud he must be of the privilege of Canadian citizenship. It is our duty to show these new Canadians the value of the privilege of being a citizen of a country like Canada and there is no better way of showing that than by having a national flag and a national anthem. Such symbols would make them prouder of being citizens of this great Canada because, even if our population is not large,

Canadian Citizenship Act we belong to a country whose unlimited resources can make it one of the greatest in the world. Besides, in the matter of exports our country ranks third and we can surely improve our position in other fields if all our citizens, by birth or naturalization, understand the value of this North American country.
I fail to see how this legislation could interfere with certain freedoms. I have always felt that freedom should not be granted equally to good and to evil. To those who enjoy Canadian citizenship, who believe in one philosophy or other, whether it be historic liberalism, Marxian socialism or what is called Fabian socialism, I say that a doctrine which is bad overseas is equally bad in Canada. To those who ask for the privileges of Canadian citizenship and who use these same privileges in an effort to destroy our public men and undermine our institutions, I say they have no right to those privileges.
We all seek to enhance the prestige attached to Canadian citizenship. We must therefore prevent anyone from outplaying Canadian authorities in certain fields, philosophy, in particular.
I congratulate the government for introducing this bill in the house. It certainly is justified. I feel we should thank our leaders because those who have long been unafraid to raise their voice against Marxist communist ideologies now see their warnings seriously heeded. I would even like the bill to be more drastic. In my opinion, those who leave this country under the pretext of returning to the paradise in which they were born should be compelled, before they are allowed to come back to this country, to go through a certain period of probation so as to prove that their mind is now free from the ideologies which first drew them back to the land of their birth, and that they will not again engage in activities detrimental to Canadian citizenship.
I would like the bill to go further. I may seem radical, but I believe that evil should not be permitted to operate freely and equally with good. A doctrine that is bad overseas is equally bad in Canada.
I am sure that the public will accept this amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act. I dare say that a large proportion of our people who understand how right we are in asking that restrictions be applied to certain individuals will rejoice in the fact that the
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1

government is taking all necessary means to ensure that Canada is never faced with what many, even today, consider to be only an imaginary threat but which is a real danger, since the enemy is on the prowl, waiting for the proper moment to pitch into us, if I may be permitted that common expression. I hope the public will realize that our fear is not imaginary, for we see only too clearly the methods and the means used by Marxist communist propaganda to preach that doctrine in our country, almost openly. It is a danger that we must ward off once and for all. It is not a mere threat, but a real and immediate danger.
(Text):


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reproaches of democracy in our country as well as in many others is that so little value is placed upon the privilege of citizenship. It may be because we make citizenship so easy to obtain. It may be that in the case of those who are born in this country something may still be lacking in the inculcation in minor years of an appreciation of the duties as well as of the privileges of citizenship. It may be that, in the case of those who acquire citizenship in Canada through the machinery of the citizenship act, we have not been as careful as we should have been with respect to the preparation of such persons, both for admission to Canada and then in turn for admission to the privilege of Canadian citizenship.
I have been pleased with one note that has run through this debate, as it ran through the debate on the introduction of the citizenship act in the 1946 session, that we in this parliament are now beginning to reflect the desire and purpose that throughout Canada a higher value shall be placed upon the possession of Canadian citizenship. It seems to me that if we achieve that end we shall have contributed not a little to the strengthening of the basic bulwarks of democracy in Canada.
There is one other note that has been sounded in this debate this afternoon which, it seems to me, was timely and proper. I refer to the concern that citizenship shall not be taken away arbitrarily from those who now possess it. There are so many dangers in interfering with freedom of expression that this parliament, as the champion of the freedoms of Canadians, must be most alert and vigilant that nothing be permitted, if

we can prevent it, by the way of infringement upon the right of free expression which is one of the great embellishments and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
I am sure that the house received with pleasure the reassurance of the minister when introducing the bill this afternoon as to the intent of the department in administering the provisions of the act. There may be something lacking in section 19 of the act, and properly reference has been made to this fact this afternoon by several hon. members who have spoken. It is true that under section 19 of the act no citizen may be deprived of his citizenship without a hearing before a commission, if he desires an inquiry by a commission. We have in section 19 the clear provision that such a commission shall be presided over by a person appointed by the governor in council who holds or has held judicial office. That is a salutary provision, and undoubtedly is a most valuable safeguard in connection with the exercise of the powers under section 19 of the act. Of course, it will apply also to the amendments under consideration today. However, there are one or two features of that right which I think the house might well consider. For instance, attached to that right to a hearing before a commission is the proviso that, if the governor in council thinks fit, instead of being held by a commission any such inquiry may be held by the superior court of the province in which the person concerned resides.
That immediately raises the question whether it might be better to have these inquiries held by the courts. The suggestion was made this afternoon that in any event, even after one of these inquiries by a commission, it should be open to the person concerned to carry an appeal to the courts. It would be interesting to learn in connection with the inquiries held to date under section 19 (4) of the Immigration Act, how many have been held by appointed commissions and how many by the superior courts of the provinces. No doubt the minister has some statistics on the point, and I hope that at some stage of the debate he will give the house that information. It seems to me that with language like this in the act there could be no objection on the part of the government to providing either that all inquiries shall be held by superior courts or that there should be the right of appeal to the courts before an executive order is made by the minister depriving any individual of his precious citizenship.
As to the amendments themselves, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that the bill
Canadian Citizenship Act before us is of much more meagre proportions and much narrower effect than I for one had expected. I re-examined the appropriate paragraph in the speech from the throne to which the minister made reference this afternoon in moving second reading, and found these words:
Appropriate amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act will be introduced to prevent the retention of Canadian citizenship by persons who have renounced their allegiance or shown by their conduct that they are not loyal to Canada.
Unquestionably many members of this house placed an interpretation upon that paragraph which is not borne out by the bill now before us; either that, or there has been some change of purpose on the part of the government in the intervening two months. Certainly the impression that went abroad was that the amendments the government proposed to introduce would be more rigorous and far-reaching than those we find in the bill. As a matter of fact the scope of this bill is quite narrow. It will be observed in the first place that it amends only one section of the citizenship act, namely section 19. It applies, of course, only to naturalized, and not Canadian-born citizens. Even within those narrowing confines the bill purports to confer the power of cancellation of citizenship upon the minister in only two cases, broadly speaking. The first case is that of the citizen who has taken up residence abroad under circumstances which indicate that he is transferring his domicile back to the land from which he first came. The second is the case of the individual who has been convicted of an offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty.
May I just dwell on that latter provision for a moment. I should think the house would require, either from the minister or from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), some elucidation of those words "offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty", particularly in comparison with the language of the present act, which is different. In the present act the conviction which is a ground for the deprivation of citizenship on the order of the minister is conviction of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction. At first blush one would say the words "offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty" would cover more ground than treason or sedition, but I think the house will wish some clarification of the words in this amendment. What offences are involved there apart from those already covered by the present act, treason or sedition, and the other that comes to mind, namely, an offence under the Official Secrets Act? I think the house will desire that information from the minister.

Canadian Citizenship Act
There is one observation of a detailed nature I think might properly be made in connection with these provisions. What is to follow when the minister has made an order cancelling the citizenship of any individual who has offended the provisions of section 19? One immediately asks, does it involve deportation? Well, under the present citizenship act, of course, no question of deportation is involved. In all fairness, I suppose under the amendments one would say that where the individual has resided outside Canada for two years in circumstances which suggest that he does not intend to return, no possible question of deportation arises. Even there, however, it might be a nice question if that individual returned and sought to enter Canada. He could not enter as a Canadian citizen, but he might contend that he was a resident of Canada. There is nothing here touching his status under the Immigration Act, it seems to me. It might be well worth the time of this house to consider what further incidents should attach in a case of that kind, where in a clear case an order has been made taking away the citizenship of an individual who has left the country.
But let us take the other case, in which the individual has been deprived of his citizenship because of conviction of an offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty. Suppose it is not a conviction of the serious offence of sedition or the even more serious offence of treason, but on a charge under the Official Secrets Act. What happens after he has been convicted and sentenced, and served his term? There are provisions in other legislation in regard to deportation, but it seems to me this house ought to include within the ambit of its consideration of a measure of this kind the question of what is to follow in such a case.
I refer to section 41 of the Immigration Act to see what light it may throw on this question of the right of a citizen who has been deprived of his citizenship under this act by order of the minister because of having committed one of the offences which are grounds for deprivation, to see what may be the position of such a person under this section of the Immigration Act. Section 41 has remained in its present form, without amendment, since 1928. It took that form in that year by amendment of the previous section which goes back to 1919. The language of this section, it seems to me, offers an interesting comparison with the language of the amendment now before the house. It reads:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or

violence of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of any official of the government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign government, or shall by word' or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control, any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered and classed as an undesirable immigrant.
Then follows a provision dealing with the machinery attaching to his being classified as an undesirable immigrant and the right of deportation provided by the act.
One naturally asks how this language, in the view of the Department of Justice, compares in breadth with the language of the amendment; in other words, where the offence involved is disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty. Does it follow from the terms of section 41 of the Immigration Act that every citizen who is deprived of citizenship because of the conviction of an offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty, immediately becomes subject to deportation, or is it the view of the Department of Justice that the language of section 41 of the Immigration Act is not as broad in some respects as the language of the new clause to which I have just referred? I think, Mr. Speaker, particularly having regard to the note sounded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in his speech today, that this question of what follows, so far as the individual is concerned, the order of the minister depriving him of his citizenship is one of high importance. If the effect of the order is simply to deprive a man of his citizenship and leave him free to exercise all the other privileges enjoyed by persons in this country, it may be that we shall have fallen short of taking the steps that ought to be taken in the light of an offence so serious as that involved in disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty, particularly in dangerous times like those in which we are living.
The minister may say that is not a matter for the citizenship act. That may be, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly is a matter that ought to be considered when we are addressing ourselves to an amendment of this kind. I well recall that in 1946, when the bill embodying the citizenship act was under debate in this house, the relationship of many of the provisions of the bill to those in the Immigration Act received very careful consideration in the house. It was the subject of a protracted debate.
One wonders, for instance, in considering this provision, about such cases as the one we have been reading about in the newspapers lately, the case of Freda Linton, now

I believe Mrs. Freda Linton Alexander. If after her residence in the United States she is now being returned to Canada, a question will naturally arise. If she was born in Canada-I do not know whether she was- it is obvious the provision in this bill could have no application to her. If, on the other hand, she was born outside of Canada and acquired citizenship in Canada, and is now to be brought to Canada before this present legislation comes into effect after more than two years in the United States, is this legislation going to have any application to her? lit would be interesting to know whether her return, under some compulsion from United States authorities, would have the effect of depriving the minister of any jurisdiction under the language of subsection (d) which applies to residence abroad of not less than two years. If Mrs. Alexander is returned to Canada in this way, what is to be the effect of this section in such a case? As I say, I do not know whether Freda Linton was born in Canada, but I think that her imminent return, as we read about it in the newspapers, may raise some interesting questions as to the effect of subsection (d).
I observe also, Mr. Speaker, that we are not informed by the government as to what, if anything, is to be done in the case of those persons who are travelling abroad under Canadian passports which have been procured by false pretences or under improper representations. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that that subject was the basis of one of the important recommendations of the royal commission on espionage in 1946. We have heard very little about any attempt on the part of the government to give effect to that important recommendation. It seems to me that the use of a Canadian passport obtained by a person who, born abroad, has obtained citizenship in Canada and obtained a passport by false pretences, should be carefully considered, as to whether that ought not also to be made a ground for the revocation of citizenship. We know that there have been abuses of passports granted by the proper Canadian authorities.
I share with those who have expressed themselves this afternoon a concern that no citizen of this country should be arbitrarily deprived of his citizenship by executive action or decree. It would be a situation fraught with the greatest danger for Canadian citizens if it were open to any minister, by irresponsible or ill-advised action, to deprive a Canadian citizen of this very high privilege and possession, Canadian citizenship, apart from a clear offence against the provisions of the act.
Canadian Citizenship Act
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that the enactment of legislation of this kind will have a salutary effect, not simply in giving power to the minister to enforce a rigorous measure against persons who commit offences against the act, but also in dissuading persons from committing such offences. It may be that this measure will exert a little more restraint upon those who do not value adequately the high possession of Canadian citizenship, and do not show His Majesty that loyalty which is properly required of every Canadian citizen, and everyone who enjoys the protection and benefits of living under the laws of Canada.
One may be pardoned in conclusion for expressing, as others have done in this debate, amazement that there are still some people in Canada who are prepared to place a lower value upon Canadian citizenship, freedom under Canadian institutions and Canadian laws, a part in the precious Canadian heritage, than the subscription to a foreign doctrine that is based upon a denial of God, a denial of the right of the individual to freedom, and the right to worship God in his own manner according to his lights.
It simply Alls one with amazement that people who have lived in Canada, and Who have acquired this great privilege of Canadian citizenship, should still be prepared to place that citizenship in jeopardy by preferring to follow a foreign ideology whose political direction with all its revolutionary purposes is directed from the Kremlin today, an ideology which	demands-as	we well
remember from the evidence taken before the royal commission on espionage in 1946- a higher loyalty than the individual or citizen owes to his own country, regardless of what that country may be or his rights and privileges in it. Yet that is the political essence of this foul doctrine which some people in Canada, even after living here, even after acquiring Canadian citizenship, are still prepared to value more highly than their rights in this country.
Where cases are proven of offences of that kind, Mr. Speaker, there should be no delay in applying the law according to its full rigour. There should be no hesitation in enacting rigorous laws in this parliament and in calling for rigorous enforcement of those laws, as long as we safeguard the rights of the individual by permitting him to go to the courts, in order to assure him that there will be no arbitrary application of the laws or arbitrary decision under the laws simply because parliament gives to the minister a right to revoke citizenship in the case of an individual. There, it seems to me, is the proper course that ought to guide parliament in a case of this kind. Let us maintain the

Canadian Citizenship Act right of the individual to go to the courts in order that there may be no arbitrary exercise of executive power, but in defining the offences which give rise to the power to take away from people rights of which they have proven themselves utterly unworthy, I for one would not hesitate for a moment in asking parliament to proceed to enact rigorous laws and in calling upon the government for the rigorous enforcement of the laws so enacted by parliament. It seems to me that while this bill goes a little distance in that direction, it is not one that really carries us very far toward coping with the broader problem with regard to those who are showing themselves daily to have much more love for and loyalty to this foreign ideology directed by the government of another country than they have for freedom and for Canadian institutions. I hope that some time the government, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) called upon them to do, will give the house an opportunity of dealing with legislation in proper form-with proper safeguards of the rights of the individual, with proper protection of his right to go to the courts-dealing with this question of disaffection and disloyalty that we are seeing expressed in many forms in many places in Canada today.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Loss of Canadian citizenship.


George Alexander Drew: Before passing from section 1, I think it would be appropriate that the minister should indicate whether there is in fact any thought in the minds of the government that they will proceed under any other legislation to deal with communists or similar activity in this country. I think it is appropriate that this information should be before the members of the committee because, whether rightly or wrongly, at the time of the speech from the throne there was a good deal of comment in the press which placed a wider interpretation upon the reference in the speech from the throne to this legislation than the bill now before us justifies. In many newspapers across Canada there was the suggestion that the government at last were going to come face to face with this issue and that they were going to pass from the stage of twilight peace to some measure of reality in facing what they regard as an emergency in other cases but as not so much of an emergency apparently in this. For that reason I think that, before we pass from this section which calls for general remarks, we should know whether the government at this session intends to introduce any other legislation pertaining to communist activity in this country.


Walter Edward Harris: As the leader of the opposition has indicated, the press comment at the time the speech from the throne was delivered speculated on what the particular reference to the citizenship act might mean. Nevertheless, it must be obvious, and it is obvious from what he has just said, that to be effective and to do what he recommends, any amendment to the laws of this country would be made by the Minister of Justice through the Criminal Code or through some other form of statute. The citizenship act is confined to the granting and the revoking of citizenship; and in my opinion it should not be the vehicle of any other form of legislation to apply to a particular group of people. Under those .conditions, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that our consideration this afternoon is related to the present amendment to the citizenship act. If the government should at any time decide to take the action that the leader of the opposition suggests should be taken, I am quite sure that notice of it would be given on the order paper in the normal manner, and would reach the house in that manner.


George Alexander Drew: I do not think that the remarks made by the minister in any way meet the situation. The act we have under consideration, and particularly the amendments included in this act, become a vehicle for bringing under the effect of this act other legislation such as the legislation to which I have referred and which I have suggested should be adopted. The section before us for consideration would provide that where an offence had been committed under the Official Secrets Act or under the Naturalization Act, and the courts had found anyone guilty of an offence under those acts, then under this act the governor in council could deny continuing citizenship to those who had been guilty of that offence. It is for that very reason that I have suggested that we should know at this time whether it is intended to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code which will deal with those activities related to communism or any similar foreign invasion of our rights by the methods that are best known to us in relation to the communist party in this country at the present time. If something is not to be done to deal with those activities, then this act is substantially inadequate to deal with the major activities of communists, either of Canadian birth or of foreign birth, who are seeking to destroy our democratic processes at this time.
If, on the other hand, there were to be another act dealing with this subject, then this provision would be very much more effective, and could have much wider consequences. It was with that thought in mind

that I asked the question; and I did observe that the minister very correctly pointed out that the introduction of an amendment to the Criminal Code would be done by the Minister of Justice. I think it would be proper, if the government has reached a decision, that the Minister of Justice should indicate to us now whether any amending legislation along that line will be introduced. I would point out before I sit down, in the hope that the Minister of Justice can indicate that something of that kind is to be done, that it was not only the press which drew conclusions which went beyond the apparent intention of the government. There was before this house a bill introduced by a private member, which would deal with certain aspects of communist activity. It will be recalled that when that bill was called on the order paper the hon. member who had placed the bill before the house stated that he did not propose to proceed with it at that time because of his expectation that the government did intend to deal with this matter as indicated in the speech from the throne.
I need not do more than point out that the hon. member who was putting forward this legislation perhaps had better opportunity than I have to know the views of the government in regard to some matters which are discussed elsewhere than in this house. For that reason I think it would be appropriate that we should know before we pass from this first section of the bill whether the Minister of Justice has any thought of introducing legislation along that line.


Mr. Garson:: As I had thought that the leader of the opposition was aware, we have each year brought down in this house amendments to various sections of the Criminal Code. There seems a disposition on the part of some hon. members here to think that the government, or some members of the government, have a fixed idea with regard to these matters of dealing with communism and subversive activity, but I can assure the leader of the opposition that that is not the case; and that in our annual task of considering the various amendments to the various sections of the Criminal Code, which we think should be introduced under the circumstances that are applicable in that year, we do consider, and are considering at the present time, sections such as sedition, treason and the like. At the .present moment I am wondering myself whether that was the draft that my hon. friend referred to this afternoon.
The law officers of the crown, in the ordinary routine course of their duties, are working on draft amendments to the Criminal Code; but I hasten to add that the fact that
Canadian Citizenship Act they are so working does not mean that all or any part of such a draft will necessarily emerge finally as a piece of legislation recommended by the government to the house.


George Alexander Drew: Legislation if necessary, but not necessarily legislation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The words are my hon. friend's. I do not think that I would even necessarily agree with his meaning.
It is a matter of the most elementary knowledge of any member of any legislative assembly that government policy originates sometimes in the minds of the ministers and sometimes in the minds of ranking civil servants and others who pass the suggestions on; and that in the course of considering changes of policy it may be necessary, in order to crystallize views upon it, to secure a draft of these ideas in the form of an amendment to an act; and then that draft is considered. I am not suggesting that this practice is being followed in respect to the draft amendment to which I referred a moment or so ago. Such a draft may be considered first of all by a committee of civil servants, and then get to a committee of the cabinet, and finally to the cabinet itself. It is not until it has been considered by the cabinet, and until the cabinet has reached an opinion upon it and it is brought into the house as a matter of government policy, that it is something for which the government is responsible.
Wishing to be as helpful as I can to my hon. friend I really do not think that the government in this case, or in any other case, is called upon to say at the present stage what decision it will reach with respect to Criminal Code amendments which have not yet come before the government for consideration, but which are in the course of preparation and will come before it in due course.
As soon as that decision is reached I shall be very happy to introduce the Criminal Code amendments bill in the ordinary course. At that time my hon. friend will have the opportunity of debating the provisions of that bill. If the bill does not contain the provisions which he desires, then he will have the opportunity of reproaching us for not having included them when we come to consider the estimates of the Department of Justice. I am afraid that beyond that I cannot help my hon. friend very much.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: During the debate on second reading I, on behalf of the C.C.F. party, offered to the minister a suggestion which had as its intention partially the safeguarding of the individual and in part the safeguarding of the minister. It was, that in a situation where an individual has his citizenship taken from him on the decision

Canadian Citizenship Act of the minister, this individual should have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Would the minister care to comment on that suggestion?


Walter Edward Harris: I have a number of comments to make on the debate as soon as I can get the opportunity. Dealing with the one point raised by my hon. friend and followed by the hon. member for Eglinton, there is in section 19 an alternative manner of revoking citizenship. The process begins with a notice to the citizen that it is the intention of the minister to revoke his citizenship for stated reasons. Upon the receipt of that the citizen can then request a hearing before the revocation commission. Under certain circumstances the governor in council may, instead of having that hearing before the commission, have it before a judge of a superior court. I am informed that that procedure has not been taken in the past, but that all the hearings have been before the commission.
When the commission hears the evidence, including that of the citizen, they make a recommendation to the minister, who then may or may not revoke the citizenship. I also want to assure the committee that in no case has the citizenship been revoked when the commission recommends that it should not be revoked. In other words, the minister has accepted the recommendation of the commission not to revoke citizenship in every case. I may go further and say that there are cases in which the citizenship is not revoked despite the recommendation of the commission.
If my hon. friend thinks that when this commission makes its recommendation the minister should then make a decision and that thereafter there should be an appeal to a judge of a superior court, I suggest that it is a new thought, and one which was not brought before the house during the debates of 1946.
I think it must be obvious that the very existence of the commission, comprised, as it is, of a judge, and several citizens, indicates that they would protect the citizen, quite as much as would a normal judicial proceeding in court. For that matter I think there are many citizens who would prefer to have it done in that way, rather than with the publicity which would attend a court. Nevertheless we can give consideration to the suggestion. I do suggest however that this body is quite as impartial as one would obtain in any other proceeding, and I doubt if a further appeal is necessary to protect the citizen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister indicate in how many cases inquiry has been held by the courts as compared with the number of inquiries held before commissions?


Walter Edward Harris: As I said in the course of my remarks, we have never employed courts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Never employed them?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Does a citizen who is in danger of losing citizenship have the choice of deciding whether his case shall be reviewed before a commission or before a superior court?


Walter Edward Harris: I believe I can answer that by saying that no request for hearing before a superior court has come to our attention. If a citizen were to make a request, and to give good reason for it, I could see that consideration should be given to it -subject, of course, to the convenience of the court, and many other matters of that kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It still rests with the governor in council to decide whether a man shall have the right to appear before the court or commission.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, Mr. Chairman, as I requested during my remarks on second reading, may I ask for some elaboration of the expression in paragraph (f) "any offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty" as compared with the language of the present act, and the expression, "convicted of treason or sedition." Is there anything more involved in the expression, "any offence involving disaffection or disloyalty", than in the expression "treason or sedition", apart from offences under the Official Secrets Act? If so, what are those additional offences?


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps this is a matter which should be passed upon by the Minister of Justice. The fact is however that we have in mind the Official Secrets Act. We are not aware of any other act at the moment which would come within the meaning. There may however be acts of espionage which would not come within the Official Secrets Act-although I think it is fairly broad. But the expression "disaffection or disloyalty" is known to all acts dealing with citizenship, and the revocation of it. It is taken directly from the United Kingdom act, and is employed there. As the hon. member knows, it was employed recently in revoking the citizenship of Dr. Fuchs. That kind of disloyalty and disaffection is what we have in mind.


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, this bill is for the revocation of citizenship, in certain cases. It does not affect civil rights at all, because an alien has the same civil rights as has a

full-fledged Canadian citizen or British subject. As it does not deprive anyone of civil rights, I wonder if it would not be more simple to check the list in the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police setting out well-known communists, and then pass an order in council to deprive them of their public rights, and to deprive them of their Canadian citizenship-because they are not worthy of enjoying it.
In these times we hear a great deal about fundamental freedoms and human rights, for scoundrels. Honest men have been accused unjustly, men who could not defend themselves successfully before the courts. Yet we hear long tirades from Mrs. Roosevelt about scoundrels, the scum of the earth, who come here and, in the name of British justice, ask to enjoy fundamental freedoms and human rights. Yet they are the ones who advocate the denial of human rights and freedoms to others.
Why should we be so lenient with those people? It would do them no harm, it would not give them a toothache if they were deprived of Canadian citizenship. They should never be allowed to enjoy or exercise it. That is simple; it is not complicated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the
hon. member explain what he means when he refers to being deprived of public rights?


Jean-François Pouliot: To be deprived of public rights is to be deprived of citizenship. My hon. friend, who is a learned jurist, knows very well that public rights go with citizenship. Aliens cannot exercise them. If my hon. friend were an alien he could not run for parliament. A public right given to a communist means that he can run for membership in the House of Commons, that he can vote at municipal elections, that he can run for office in a city council, a provincial legislature or anything else. He could even be appointed to the bench.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is logical. I do not see why we should be so considerate of those people who try to undermine the pillars of our Canadian society. "Human rights and fundamental freedoms"-I am sick and tired of hearing that all the time in the house, because it is for the benefit of communists who have no other purpose than the broadening of legislation for their own benefit.
When the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is so hard on Count de Bernon-ville, I do not see why Tim Buck is not expelled from Canada and deprived of his citizenship. This I cannot understand. And there are others in Montreal, including Guy
Canadian Citizenship Act Caron, who are enjoying full Canadian citizenship, although they are well-known communists.
Surely there is something wrong there. Then, there is something in the bill that does not suit me. The suggested wording of section 19(2) is as follows:
The governor in council may, in his discretion, order that any person shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon a report from the minister, he is satisfied that such person has, when not under a disability,
(a)	when in Canada and at any time after the first day of January, nineteen hundred1 and forty-seven, acquired the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage:
(b)	taken or made an oath, affirmation or other declaration of allegiance to a foreign country; or
(c)	made a declaration renouncing his Canadian citizenship.
According to what has been written about communism, as we see it in books and periodicals, a communist is a man who has no allegiance to His Majesty the King, or to the chief of state or to anyone who is not a communist and a vassal of Moscow. It is easy to understand that. Therefore it is not on the report of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the government should act, but on the report of the Minister of Justice to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, giving him the list of names of avowed communists in the files of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Is that fair enough? That is my suggestion. I do not intend to move an amendment, but I do suggest that if there is injustice to anyone he should be given the right of appeal to the minister or notified, as the minister said a moment ago, of what proceedings are about to be taken.
I challenge any communist to deny that he is a supporter of Stalin. I challenge him to deny Stalin in public. Whether he is under oath or not means nothing because they do not believe in an oath even though their heads are covered. I hope that some action of this kind will be taken, if not now at least tomorrow. Hundreds of communists are enjoying special privileges in this country. The government knows what communism is and it has no sympathy for them. Why should these people be treated like newborn babes who are wrapped in cotton and bathed in olive oil? No one should be afraid to act with regard to communism and to stop it it at the earliest possible moment.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: This afternoon the hon. member for Skeena enunciated what I thought was an admirable doctrine. He said that he would rather see two or three guilty individuals go free than one

Canadian Citizenship Act innocent person punished. I revert again to this subject. The minister has outlined for us the steps which can be taken by an individual to protect himself. I am not so much concerned about what will happen while the present minister is minister because I think his conduct is exemplary. He has been generous in his treatment of many cases. But I am concerned about what some other minister may do. That is why I want to see all the protection possible given to the individual, even though he may be guilty. I want to see him get all the protection to which he is legally entitled, and much more so if perchance he should be innocent.
That is why I suggest that the individual should have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and not to the higher court of a province. The stripping away of citizenship is a most serious thing indeed. Would it not be fairer and perhaps wiser to give the individual the alternative of stating whether he wants to be heard by a commission or by a superior court?


Walter Edward Harris: To begin with, almost all countries follow the commission practice. It is a more informal procedure and does not burden the courts with cases which in many instances would remain on the list for two or three years before being heard. I think I can show my hon. friend that it does do justice to the citizen concerned. While I have not been in the house all the time, I do not think that any complaint has been made in the house since 1947 about any case handled by a commission.
One can argue that the judiciary is the best body to decide all questions of this kind. That may well be, but I think the committee will agree that if we removed that decision to the courts there would be members of this house who would feel that we had made a mistake. They might argue that the place to debate citizenship, how it can be gained and how it can be lost, is here, and that the minister should be responsible to the members of this house and through them to the people of Canada as to whether citizenship should be revoked. That is why we retain the present system. I think it is a good system and unless my hon. friend can point to errors in it I think we should continue with it.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to ask the
minister a question in connection with clause
(d)	of section 1 which reads:
(d)	has, since becoming a Canadian citizen or being naturalized in Canada, been for a period of not less than two years ordinarily resident in a foreign country of which he was a national or citizen at any time prior to his becoming a Canadian citizen or being naturalized in Canada and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada;


Can the minister say what is meant by the words, "substantial connection with Canada"? Would it be considered to be a substantial connection with Canada if a person who was going to another country wrote to the Secretary of State and informed him that he intended to be away for two or three years or something of that sort?


Walter Edward Harris: There is a procedure laid down by the regulations whereby an individual may notify the local office of the Canadian government in the country to which he goes or leave word in this country as to his intention to return. If my hon. friend will turn to section 18 he will see that certain types of occupations are stated not to affect a man's status in that country. I shall be glad to send a copy of the regulations to my hon. friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is natural that great importance should be given to evidence as to the place of birth of an individual, but there are times when the individual must rely on what is said by his relatives as to his place of birth. I know of a man who has been successful in this country and is now giving employment to a number of people. He has been here for thirty or forty years. I wonder if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration would be disposed to grant citizenship when there is doubt as to the place of birth?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer to that question is contained in section 11 under which the minister is given some discretion with respect to questions of fact. If my hon. friend will draw the case to my attention I shall be pleased to consider it.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 7, to incorporate the Hutterian Brethren Church- Mr. Viau-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Weir:: Mr. Chairman, on the various occasions this bill has been called I have asked that it stand. I am obliged to the hon. member for St. Boniface for his courtesy in permitting that to be done. This bill was introduced in the Senate, where it was referred to the private committee and finally passed. In this house it has also been con-

sidered by the private bills committee, where it was thoroughly looked into. As far as I know no question has been raised with respect to it in either committee. Having asked that the bill stand on previous occasions, however, I thought I should give some explanation.
The people who are seeking the incorporation of this religious order are a particular sect who live for the most part in Manitoba and Alberta. In Manitoba they are located mainly between Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie; and to be even more precise, for the most part they live in the municipalities of Cartier and Portage la Prairie.
These people follow a strict, communal type of life, entirely different to anything else we have experienced in this country, and they follow that type of life religiously and conscientiously. Perhaps they can be best likened to a hive of bees, except in the matter of their thrift. They live in colonies, with a common dining room and common living quarters. Theirs is a common income, with no one being paid individually. But the time comes when each colony, which may number fifty families or more, finds it necessary to expand, and they swarm out wherever they can secure new property. In this area to which I have referred I believe there are something like twenty of these Hutterite colonies, located in the very best farming district in the province, and naturally when they expand they remain as close as possible to the existing colonies. Only last week I had the privilege of seeing a map of that area showing the Hutterite colonies, and it was somewhat alarming to say the least to see how they have expanded there. I am bound to say that if this goes on, in the course of time they might very easily acquire all the property in that district.
The point I am making is that while these colonies now have in the neighbourhood of
70,000	acres, their expansion would mean the acquisition of more property, which would make it almost impossible for those following a different sort of life to remain in those communities. Collectively the Hutterites are a large organization, and are good financial risks. As a result they are able to purchase large tracts of land, and in so doing they completely upset the community life. They dislocate the schools and other community enterprises. More than that, the neighbours do not find it congenial, to say the least, to reside close by. The result is that sooner or later these people acquire the properties of their neighbours as well.
My reason for asking that this bill stand on the various occasions it has been called
Hutterian Brethren Church is largely due to a very deep concern that has been expressed by the non-Hutterites of all classes in the community where these people have become established. Some two years ago these non-Hutterites formed themselves into a loose type of organization and made representations to the provincial legislature, requesting that steps be taken to bring about a larger measure of control, though I do not like to use that word. They asked that something be done to assist in bringing about a better relationship between the people who follow our way of life and the Hutterites. Certain things were done, but fundamentally little progress was made. I mention this in order to indicate that there is a very real concern in that area of Manitoba regarding these people. And we are not alone in that concern. I believe our friends in Alberta had a similar experience, and took certain steps to meet this very situation. One of the things Alberta did was to require that no new colony should be established closer than forty miles from an existing colony. I am bound to say I have a large measure of sympathy with that proposition. These people have shown no indication of any desire to be pioneers. As I said a moment ago they have resources, and being a collective corporation they are able to obtain credit and purchase land as a private individual cannot do. In other words, they are a good credit risk for anyone who wants to sell them property or do business with them.
I say that the Alberta government, in my view at least, took a rather reasonable course. I do not think it hurt the Hutterites at all, because I think it was to their advantage since it gave them an opportunity to see what they could do in other lands that were neither so fertile nor so well established as those on which they were residing. As an indication that I am not alone in raising some apprehension over this particular matter, I refer to a speech made in this chamber one or two years ago by the member for Calgary West, who was much more critical than anyone else I have heard in connection with these people.
The fact is that these people have no desire to become assimilated in this country. They follow their own religious beliefs. They do not want to educate their families, and they just do not want to pioneer or do anything except to live their own lives in their own easy way. We may say that is a perfectly sensible course to pursue. However, I do not believe any of us would feel that our country was developing or making much progress if everyone in it were a Hutterite. I have never known the children of the

Hutterian Brethren Church Hutterite colony to go to high school. I have never known one to enter any profession, that is they never become lawyers, doctors or anything of that kind. It may be their way of life, but I am bound to say that to me at least it does not give much confidence for the building of citizenship among those people.
I refer again to what I indicated a moment ago, that they have no desire to become assimilated with other people. Now that is what causes the apprehension among those people who are residents of the same community. They would regret exceedingly to see these people, who have not assumed the full rights of citizenship-incidentally they do not vote except in municipal elections to a limited extent- secure any advantage at this stage. As I said a moment ago, they do not appear to be prepared to assume the full rights of citizenship as we understand such rights in this country. It is for that reason that my friends, largely in my own constituency have expressed so much concern over a course of action taken by this body to acquire federal incorporation. I have done my best to satisfy them that this bill does not provide any encroachment by these people; that it is no different, in the main, from legislation that is provided for other religious organizations.
I confess that I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert at reading legislation that is presented to us. We have however taken advantage of the opportunity of getting free legal advice. This bill has been reviewed by some of my lawyer friends, without cost to anyone. I think I am able to say to the member for St. Boniface that this bill is in conformity with similar legislation that has been introduced in this house for the incorporation of other church organizations, and on that score alone I have no intention of delaying the passage of the bill. But I do want to take this opportunity of reciting a few things in connection with these people to indicate why there is this measure of concern about them, and why we should exercise a measure of caution when dealing with a class of people who are not prepared to become assimilated in the way of life that we recognize in this country.
So far as the bill itself is concerned, any comparison I have been able to make of it with similar legislation that has been introduced into the house concerning other church organizations does not reveal that it is out of line at all. Just in passing I would say these people have a perfect right to introduce what is contained in section 6. These people have always been conscientious objectors. I understand that they have felt some concern over that principle of their religion because

they fear others might attempt to cloak themselves under the mantle of the Hutterite Brethren church. For that reason, as I understand it, the main purpose of this bill is to get definitely established who can become a member of the Hutterite church. I think we will subscribe to that immediately, and hope it will work out to their advantage as well as to the advantage of the rest of the people of Canada.
In looking over the bill some of my friends did express a good deal of apprehension with respect to section 7 which has to do with the power to acquire and hold property. I might say that the fear in this regard was that federal incorporation might mean these people could combine their collective resources, and thus become a great monopoly to acquire properties and other things of that character without limit. I am assured that that is taken care of under our provincial laws having to do with property and civil rights, so I do not think we need to have any apprehension in that regard. I only mention that for the sake of the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance, and to urge them to look over matters of this character to see that it is not a means of cloaking an organization of this kind under the guise of a religious organization, thereby avoiding income tax.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer is what I assume to be the governing clause. It is contained in section 10 which says:
. . . the exercise of the said powers shall in any province of Canada be subject to the laws of such province as to the acquisition and holding of lands by religious corporations, in so far as such laws apply to the corporation.
I take that to be the governing factor in connection with this bill, and if it is I am quite satisfied to have it go through as it is. Perhaps I should mention one other thing. The member for St. Boniface paid high tribute to these people in introducing the bill, as did the hon. senator who introduced it in the other place. I am obliged to them for that, and I do not quarrel with the observations that they made. I believe I can say I have been a little closer to this problem than either of those gentlemen. I do not say that in a critical sense at all, but I should like to suggest to them that, in spite of the good qualities they have attributed to these people, there are many little irritations, not of great importance in themselves, which from time to time arise. It is perhaps because of their method of living which irritates our own people in those particular districts. I refer again to their method of doing business. They purchase largely on a wholesale basis, and strange to say they can usually get ample

credit to do so. Everything tnat they can, they make themselves. They make their clothing, their boots and shoes.
Consequently you can understand how there is a good deal of displeasure with regard to these people in the local communities that are affected. I think that one of the mistakes that we made in our own province was with respect to the question of education. These people do not believe in educating their children. Our mistake was that we did not require them to attend our public schools as other children did. They have, for the most part, lived within our school laws; but being a community, being really little towns in themselves, it has been convenient to locate the schools on their properties. Consequently, there has not been the opportunity for the children of these people to get out and take advantage of outside education; and I think they are the losers by it.
One could say other things regarding these people. I rose only for the purpose of voicing a serious feeling on the part of the people in the communities that are affected. They are apprehensive over the growth and the expansion of these colonies. They realize and recognize immediately that it is upsetting the ordinary community life as we have recognized it in our development from the first time this country was opened up. While I am not one of those who say that these people have not the right to follow whatever religious faith they choose to follow, none the less I think that there should be a greater recognition perhaps on the part of our own province of the particular problem that has arisen because of these people. I said a moment ago that I had a good deal of faith in or support for the action taken by the province of Alberta in requiring that these people should not create a new colony any nearer than forty miles from an existing colony. I said that I thought that was to the advantage of the Hutterites themselves, and I believe time will bear that statement out. If these people would go out farther afield and become more or less pioneers, I would think they would be appreciated more than they are.
But in connection with the efforts that were made by this same committee to which I referred in the province of Manitoba, immediately any suggestion was made that there should be a curtailment of freedom or any thought of an attempt at restricting their religious faith, naturally the hue and cry went up throughout the country that we were interfering with human rights and fundamental freedoms or whatever you may call it in that regard. Even the press of Manitoba took that line and pressed it
Hutterian Brethren Church severely. I want to say to the press of our own province that if they had to depend on the Hutterite people for their circulation, they would soon find that it did not amount to very much; because I will venture to say that there are not a dozen daily newspapers from the city of Winnipeg sold in all the Hutterite colonies in the province of Manitoba. Likewise there are no radios or musical instruments-nothing that we look upon as cultural necessities in our way of life.
Perhaps I have said enough at this stage. I am obliged to the hon. member for St. Boniface for not pressing consideration of this bill until those who were particularly interested-and I think that is democracy- had an opportunity to have it carefully reviewed and to be assured that there was no undue advantage being taken by federal incorporation of this group of people at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Power to acquire and hold property.
William Gilbert Weir: I wonder if the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill would be good enough to give me assurance as to its meaning and purport in so far as the acquisition of property is concerned vis-a-vis taxation and so on.


Mr. Viau:: As members of the committee will know, clause 7 is the same as that in all bills incorporating all religious groups in this country, be it the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church or the United Church, or even in the three bills we have before the house right now concerning the incorporation of the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the different parts of this Canada of ours. As to the wording, that the corporation may purchase property, section 1 which was passed specifies that this is a bill for the incorporation of the Hutterian Brethren Church hereinafter called "the corporation", and specifies that all the property will only be property held by the Hutterian Church in the province of Manitoba or the province of Alberta. It has nothing to do with personal properties held by the Hutterites, as those come under provincial laws.


William Gilbert Weir: In the similar section of at least one other church incorporation bill there was a little difference in the wording following the word "corporation" in the fortieth line. In the other bills use was made of the phrase "ecclesiastic and eleemosynary." Those are not in this section in the same way that they are in the other sections that I looked up. I
1594	HOUSE OF
Hutterian Brethren Church was wondering if the explanation for its being phrased differently arose out of the rather unusual type of organization that these people have. In other words, there is no thought of these people going out in the missionary field and attempting to bring in adherents, other than their own people, to this religious faith. Am I right in that?


Fernand Viau: I have not before me copies of the other bills incorporating other religious groups of this country; but I well remember the word "ecclesiastic". It refers to the rank held by members of the churches, in the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church or the United Church, which rank is not held by any members of the Hutterite Church.


Mr. Carroll:: Did they take up arms in the last war?


Fernand Viau: With respect to the taking up of arms either by the Hutterites, the Mennon-ites or any Anglo-Saxon religious group who claimed certain exemptions during the last war-and there were a good number of them in the last war-the Hutterities did claim certain exemptions.


William F. Carroll: Do they all take the same grounds?


Fernand Viau: No. There were a certain number of Hutterites who joined the armed forces in the province of Manitoba in the last war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Application of mortmain laws.
William Gilbert Weir: I hope the committee will not think that this is developing into a little argument between two members from the same province in connection with this bill, because I assure you there is no argument about it. But what I should like to ask here is the amount of property that is set aside as church property for the purposes of the church alone.
I am given to understand that in Manitoba it is a half section of land, three hundred acres belonging to the church and twenty acres as a cemetery. If that provision is made generally to church organizations who are prepared to go out and do missionary work and carry on other activities in connection with their religion, as generally promoted throughout the country and elsewhere, may I point out there is no desire and not even any thought on the part of these people of going beyond their own farmyards, so to speak. I realize, let me say immediately, that this comes within the scope of provincial jurisdiction having to do with property and r.Mr. Weir.]

civil rights. But if we have granted to other religious organizations a half section of land, if I am properly informed, as part of the church property in itself, then there might be good grounds for suggesting to our provincial legislature that with these people being more curtailed in- their activities, steps might be taken to reduce the amount of land they could have as part of their church property.


Fernand Viau: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. When he refers to the Hutterites as citizens, perhaps I agree with him in that respect, but in respect to the church property which is now being held by any religious group in the province of Manitoba, that property is subject to municipal and provincial laws. That is also true with respect to the number of acres which can be held by a church for a church establishment within the province of Manitoba. That is subject to the close scrutiny of the municipality where the church is established. If an amendment is to be placed before the municipality, or if the city bylaws are changed, it is subject to revision by the provincial legislature, and as such if the amount of land which could be held by one church is in excess of the amount held by other religious groups in the province of Manitoba, then our provincial representatives could express their criticism of the excess land held by the Hutterites in the province of Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Rose Pap Bernstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Albert William Stone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Yvette Barnaby Shang.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Minnie Engle Fitleberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Carol Elizabeth Chute Levesque.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Lillian Cohen Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Georgina Catherine Christie Savage.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Irene Bourgeau Morin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Anne Cohen Bialer.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 158, for the relief of Josephine Gibson Clark Mayou.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Henry John Lawrence.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Grace Shirley Kraminsky Levy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Bella Rashkin Deutsch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Gladys Eliza Cartwright Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Grace Helen Potts Worall.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Applewhaite for the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is described as an act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company. It provides for amendments to the act which set up that company quite a few years ago. The main amendments will be, in the first place, to increase the capital from $25 million to $75 million; in the second place, to make certain changes in the provisions covering preference shares; and finally, to give the company the power to pay a commission on the sale of its shares.
I am opposing the bill in its present form for several reasons. I believe that the people of British Columbia are not getting a fair deal in so far as telephone rates are concerned; that the telephone users in our province are not adequately protected now, and that their position will be worse if the bill passes in its present form. Parliament has a responsibility to protect the people of British Columbia, and I ask for the most careful consideration of the bill by my fellow members.
It is significant that the Vancouver city council passed a resolution unanimously, asking the members from that city to oppose this measure on two grounds:	In the first
place, because the council believe that an excessive increase in capital is being sought, and second, they believe that under the company's present act there is no protection against unreasonable charges which are levied against the British Columbia Telephone Company by its parent and affiliated companies. In other words, the Vancouver city council believe that the British Columbia Telephone Company is being milked by its parent company in Montreal, and by the parent company of the Montreal company, which is an American corporation, with headquarters in Kansas City. All the time the
British Columbia Telephone Company people cf British Columbia have to feed the cow by way of paying the full rates.
I use the words "the people of British Columbia" not the words "the people of Vancouver" advisedly, because this company and its affiliates own over 90 per cent of the telephones used in that province, and of course they have a monopoly in all of those areas. I believe that all of the communities in our province endorse the stand taken on this bill by the council of the city of Vancouver. Last year there was a hearing before the board of transport commissioners of an application by the company for an increase in telephone rates. At that hearing the city of Vancouver was represented by counsel; also the cities of Victoria and New Westminster, the municipality of Burnaby and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and the provincial government. All of these bodies appeared opposing the application of the telephone company for an increase in rates.
The city council now ask that the increase of capital be kept to a reasonable amount. This bill seeks an increase from $25 million to $75 million, which means that the capital would be trebled. But that is not the whole picture. In 1947, just four years ago, the company obtained an amendment in the House of Commons which increased the capital from $11 million to $25 million. So that if the increase now sought becomes law it will mean that within four years there has been almost a sevenfold increase, from $11 million to $75 million.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this bill the company is asking too much. At the rate hearing last year it said that it had large expenditures to make on capital account. There is no doubt that there will have to be a great deal of money spent in the years that lie ahead. I understand the evidence was that it would require about $10 million a year, by way of new capital expenditures, until the year 1952 which would mean a period of three years, and that there would be further expenditures in later years. The sponsor of the bill, upon introducing it in the house, said the company would require $10 million a year for ten years. I rather think that was an exaggeration. The annual reports for the years 1949 and 1950 show that the company has spent something like $8 million in each of those years. I would point out to hon. members that because of shortages of materials there will probably be a good deal of difficulty in these years lying ahead to get the necessary supplies. I doubt very much whether it will be necessary or, in fact, possible, to spend as much as $10 million a year.

British Columbia Telephone Company
However, let us look at the picture showing the money to be spent on capital account. In the treasury now there remains $5 million. In other words only $20 million of the $25 million has been issued. If this increase of $50 million is granted there will then be $55 million available to issue as shares. But the ratio of share capital to the bonded indebtedness in financing by this company is approximately 40 to 60. In other words where they raised $40 through the issue of shares, they raise $60 by issuing bonds and other securities of a similar nature. So that if they have $55 million in share capital available to issue, they would have $82,500,000 to be raised by way of bonded indebtedness. This makes a total of $137,500,000 which would be available for capital expenditures, if the bill is accepted in its present form.
Even at their own figure of spending $10
million a year, the increase they are now asking would be good for from fourteen to twenty years. I would point out that in addition there is approximately $17 million in a depreciation reserve, which would also be available for capital expenditures. I say that fourteen to twenty years is too long a time for the company to go, without being required to come back to parliament.
And it is so important that parliament should have some check on companies of this kind. There is no check by the provincial government. The company is incorporated under a dominion act, and is not subject to regulation by the provincial utilities body. The only groups which have any power of regulation are right here in parliament, and also in the board of transport commissioners. So I say there is great value to the people of British Columbia in the requirement that the company must come before parliament at fairly frequent intervals.
Always the situation is that the people pay the shot. In the long run, any increased expenditures have to be paid by the telephone users; and those users are entitled to all the protection they can be given by parliament. The present bill asks for too much at one time. It means that there will be much less control by parliament-in fact there will be no control for from fourteen to twenty years. It means there will be no control by the cities and municipalities of British Columbia. And those corporate bodies are always at a great disadvantage in trying to fight a utility company such as the British Columbia Telephone Company.
I know very well that there is need for a pretty close check on the company, because when in 1947 they applied for the increase from $11 million to $25 million I thought I

had worked out a pretty good method of making sure that there would not be an application for an increase in rates in the immediate future. When the bill was before the house for second reading I asked for an undertaking from the then hon. member for New Westminster, who was sponsoring the bill. Hansard of that time, where the undertaking is recorded, reports my words as follows:
I understand that the hon member has been authorized to give assurance to the effect that the company has no present intention of applying for an increase of rates and will not make any such application unless compelled to do so by extensive changes in conditions.
Mr. Reid answered, "That is my definite understanding". In so stating he was acting in perfectly good faith for he had been authorized by the company to give that undertaking. Then I went on to say:
That assurance is clearly worded and contains a statement to the effect that an application will not be made unless the company is compelled to do so and then only by reason of extensive changes in conditions. If the hon. member for New Westminster is prepared to give that assurance on behalf of the British Columbia Telephone Company I for one shall have no objection to the bill passing.


Mr. Reid:: I am authorized to do so, and it is my
definite understanding.
That was in May of 1947. In June of 1949 the company launched its application for' an increase in rates. When the representative of the city of Vancouver pleaded before the board of transport commissioners that it should take into consideration conditions only since 1947, and attempted to read this undertaking, he was met by a vigorous protest from counsel appearing for the British Columbia Telephone Company-a distinguished senator; mind you, he was acting for the company, and representing them most efficiently. I have here a quotation from what he said to the board of transport commissioners: "I didn't know my learned friend was appearing on behalf of parliament." The company took the position that what was said in parliament had nothing to do with the situation, and that it was not any of the board's business. The deputy chief commissioner of the board, who was presiding, took the same position, and simply brushed aside the representations made by the city, and the undertaking which had been given in the House of Commons. Therefore I repeat that I for one think there should be some fairly definite curb on this company in that they should be required to come back here at frequent intervals so that the people of British Columbia will at least receive that amount of protection.
The Vancouver city council also asked protection against unreasonable charges by affiliates, all of which charges have to be paid

by the telephone users. In order to explain that I must give hon. members the picture of the family tree of this company. It was founded by west coast pioneers and they deserve great credit for establishing this company. Some of the descendants of those pioneers are still with the company. In fact the president, Mr. Gordon Farrell, is a son of one of the key men of the early days of the company. I believe that it is well run, efficiently managed and has a very efficient staff.
For many years it was controlled in British Columbia with local men having all of the direction of the company and no decisions being made outside of the province. However, in the 1920's control was acquired by a Delaware corporation known as the Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company with headquarters in Kansas City. It holds control of the British Columbia Telephone Company through Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company of Montreal which owns
60,000	of the 80,000 common shares. For a long time, in fact until last year, Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company owned all of the issued common shares. Last year, however, 20,000 common shares were sold to the public and although the par value of the shares is $100 they brought $139. Dividends of eight per cent have been paid on the common stock for many years. Only the common shareholders vote. Preferred shareholders have no vote in the affairs of'the company. Therefore Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company and through it Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company have been able to control the company although they only hold a small portion of the issued shares, there being a large amount out by way of preference shares.
Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company also controls other telephone companies in British Columbia. It controls Chilliwack Telephones Limited, Mission Telephone Company Limited, both of which are in the riding of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), Kootenay Telephone Company Limited and Northwest Telephone Company. These are smaller telephone companies operating in different parts of the province. In addition to controlling these local companies Anglo-Canadian also controls a company known as Canadian (B.C.) Telephones and Supplies Limited, and another one known as Dominion Directory Company Limited. These are companies operating in the province, and in effect operating in conjunction with British Columbia Telephone Company. They are affiliated companies, and I propose to deal with them at some length.
In the hearing before the board of transport commissioners last year it was disclosed that Dominion Directory Company Limited, 80709-102
3,	1951	1597
British Columbia Telephone Company which is owned by Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, has a contract with the British Columbia Telephone Company whereby on all advertising contracts for the directory the directory company receives 35 per cent commission. It does not do the printing of the telephone directory. I understand that subsidiary companies of the Bell Telephone Company print their directory, but in British Columbia there is this contract with the directory company. The profits of the directory company go directly to Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company. In other words, British Columbia Telephone Company is being milked in that way, and the telephone users of our province are expected to pay the shot. The board of transport commissioners were not interested in that arrangement. They said it was purely a question of management.
Then the supply company to which I referred a few moments ago, namely, Canadian (B.C.) Telephones and Supplies Limited, purchases all supplies for the British Columbia Telephone Company, instals exchange equipment, and executes repairs. For that it is paid at a set rate. For example, on purchases it gets a commission of five per cent. Incidentally purchases by the telephone company in some cases at least are from other affiliated companies. I believe, for example, that Phillips Electrical Works Limited of Brockville is an affiliate, and much of the equipment is purchased from that company. The profits of the supply company also go back to Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company . in Montreal.
Then there is a licensing contract directly between Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company and the British Columbia Telephone Company under which one per cent of all operating revenue of the company in British Columbia goes to Anglo-Canadian in Montreal. I must take a little time, Mr. Speaker, to explain that contract, so I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the
house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 172, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)- Mr. Dion in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Citizenship Act
On section 1-Loss of Canadian citizenship.
Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak on wheat. While the bill is under consideration I think that the government should be made aware of the serious responsibilities involved in the return of certain people to Canada after leaving this country a short time ago. I should like to cite a few articles before asking the minister a question at the conclusion of my remarks. In this evening's edition of the Ottawa Journal an article appears headed, "Says Yugoslavians returned to Canada to work for Stalin". This story comes from Sudbury, the riding I represent in this house, and goes on to say:
Peter Borovich, leader of the Yugoslav colony here, protested today the return to Canada of men he said are avowed communists.
Borovich declared that Sam Lazich, whom he described as the former Sudbury leader of the communist party, is returning from Yugoslavia after going there four years ago. He said the federal government is "criminally soft and stupid ... to readmit people of the very same kind as those who are killing Canadians in Korea."
Borovich claimed the return of the Yugoslavs is being financed by the communist party and by communist-dominated national groups. The Canadian government "is rescuing Lazich from Tito so he can work for Stalin in Canada."
"The Yugoslavs who left Canada were the most rabid communists in the country," Borovich said. ". . . they were no good to this country and never will be".
I know the man who made that statement. Mr. Borovich is a hotelkeeper in my city; we have been in the same business there for many years. I do not know if Sam Lazich is the man I think he is, but if so he was an outstanding communist in my district. I want to tell hon. members that the first communist candidate ever to get nomination papers in this country got them in my district, which was then Nipissing, in 1930. We have many communists in our part of the country, but not all the people there are communists; and I would not want to make that statement without qualifying it further by saying that not all foreign-born people in this country are communists. There must be at least
40,000	of these people in my riding, and I know them well. This statement by Peter Borovich, who is a responsible citizen, is very strong. Knowing Pete as I do, being a hotelkeeper and probably with a couple of beers under his belt, he would make the statement as strong as possible. But I always found that Borovich used his best judgment when he had a couple of beers.
At this point I would like to read to the house what was said by the present Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, when these people left Canada to go to Yugoslavia. I hope the lawyers will listen,

because this is a legal position. I am glad I am not a lawyer; perhaps I would be in jail if I were.


Jean-François Pouliot: You may not be a lawyer, but you have a natural legal sense.


Léoda Gauthier: The Prime
Minister had this to say when he was asked as to the status of those Yugoslavs who returned to their country on this so-called patriotic call; it can be found at page 3370 of Hansard for 1947, under the heading "Canadians leaving for Yugoslavia-position of naturalized citizen leaving Canada".
The legal position of an alien leaving Canada is governed by the Immigration Act which provides that an alien acquires Canadian domicile "only by having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein." He loses his domicile by "voluntarily residing out of Canada with the present intention of making his permanent home out of Canada and not for a mere special or temporary purpose."
Thus a Yugoslav citizen, regardless of the length of time he has lived in Canada, will lose his right to re-enter Canada if he goes to Yugoslavia with the intention of making his permanent home in Yugoslavia. Should he change his mind and wish to re-enter Canada, he would have no right to reenter Canada and would have to apply for admission as any other prospective immigrant.
Moreover, if he should be readmitted to Canada, he could not count his previous stay in Canada for the acquisition of Canadian domicile. In order to become a citizen of Canada he would, after his return, have to remain in Canada for five years.
The legal position of a Canadian citizen by naturalization leaving Canada is governed by sections 20 and 21 of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Section 20 reads in part as follows: "A Canadian citizen, other than a natural-born Canadian citizen . . . ceases to be a Canadian citizen if he resides outside Canada for a period of at least six consecutive years," subject to various provisos. Section 21 provides inter alia for cancellation of citizenship by order in council if a naturalized citizen "out of Canada has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty."
It is important to note that a warning appears at the back of the current Canadian passport, which reads as follows:
"Canadian citizens by naturalization certificate or citizenship certificate should bear in mind that unless under the laws of the state to which they originally belonged or by the provision of a treaty, they have ceased to be subjects of that state, their certificates have no effect within its boundaries nor can the good offices of His Majesty's representatives be extended to them there."
There is quite a bit more to the statement, but I am not going to read more of it. I am going to use this as the basis of a question which I hope the minister will answer during this debate. However, I want to say that sometimes I have been accused by people in my district of receiving the support of the communist party in elections. That statement has been made in literature put out by other parties in this house, that sometimes the Liberals were hooked up with the communists. Let me tell those people what I

have said publicly in every campaign in which I have taken part, and I have taken part in elections in this country since 1925. If I have to depend upon the support of communists to get to the House of Commons, I do not want to be a member of this house. We know communism has no place in our system, and there should be no pussyfooting in stating our position on this matter. I never pussyfoot on anything, certainly not on communism.
In conclusion I would like to ask the minister to answer this question at the proper time. Before their departure these people showed that they were propagandists for the communist doctrine, whether in my part of the country or elsewhere. If they are readmitted and continue their communist activities, has the government any laws under which they may be deported, or are we going to have to pass another bill? I say we should deport them if they continue their communist activities. You may not pay much attention to what Pete Borovich has to say, but I know he is one of the outstanding leaders of the Croatian people in Canada, and he knows what is going on among them; I am positive of that. If Pete Borovich believes that some of these fellows are coming back, under instructions of some communists in another country, and crying for Canada to take them back then these people may become embarrassing to our country. I hope and believe that the minister and his officials will do everything possible to check on these people since they have been over there before they are readmitted to Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the matter just raised by the member for Sudbury has an interesting bearing on a point I raised this afternoon, and on which I think it is now fair to ask the minister to make a statement. Paragraph (d) of the proposed new subsection refers to a period of not less than two years during which a person who has been born outside of Canada and has become a Canadian citizen goes back to reside in the country from which he came. If this bill is adopted now, does an absence from Canada hitherto qualify within the provision of this paragraph
(d), or is the interpretation that is being put upon this paragraph that the two years commence running only from the date on which this bill comes into force?
The question has point, I think, in relation to the case I cited this afternoon of Freda Linton. I do not know whether Freda Linton was born in Canada-probably the minister has information on that point-but if she was born in Canada then my illustration has no bearing. If she was bom otuside of Canada and acquired citizenship here, then it will be 80709-102i
Canadian Citizenship Act very interesting to see how this legislation is going to have application to her case. We are told she has been residing in the United States in recent years, and is now being deported from the United States to Canada. Is her return to Canada, under some compulsion from United States authorities, going to have the effect of breaking this two-year absence-in her case more than two years-so that the section would not have any application to her?
In the case of those persons who were born in Yugoslavia to whom reference has been made by the member for Sudbury, of course if they did not acquire Canadian citizenship before they departed from Canada, then this bill has no bearing on their case. To the extent to which some or all of them had acquired Canadian citizenship before their departure in 1947, it will be interesting to know now whether this legislation is to be interpreted as having any application to them, in view of the fact that it is presumed they are now returning. I think the committee would be glad to hear a statement from the minister on this point, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister answers, if I may be permitted, there is something I should like to say in this connection. It concerns the loss of Canadian citizenship. No mention is made of British citizenship. How can the minister deprive a British subject of citizenship, and prevent him from running in municipal, provincial, or federal elections?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He does not have to be a Canadian citizen to run in those elections.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just saying that. Here is a man with British citizenship. He may come from any part of the British commonwealth or empire. He comes here, runs in an election and is immune. The minister cannot deprive him of Canadian citizenship, because he has none. However, he has the same privileges as if he had his Canadian citizenship. This shows the absurdity of dual citizenship. I say that purely from a legal point of view.
When the bill was passed originally, I said to the minister who was sponsoring the bill that dual citizenship was sheer nonsense. Naturally, I meet some people here in Ottawa who say they are British subjects and do not care about Canadian citizenship. Others, from Mr. King down, have taken Canadian citizenship and have remained British subjects. I should like to know what the minister can do in such a case? What can he do about a man who comes here from any part of the empire, and who is a well-known communist? How can he deprive him of his
1600

Canadian Citizenship Act British citizenship? So long as he has it, he has full public rights.


Howard Charles Green: Under the Immigration Act he can be kept out.


Jean-François Pouliot: But they are not kept out. They come in, and they come in in bulk. We had some very sad examples amongst the scientists who came from various places, and who were in the spy network. This may be good legislation, but I do not see how it can be operative because of this contradiction that exists in the law itself. If the law was drafted that way, it was to appease the imperialists who sit in parliament. They opposed a definite change which would have permitted the minister to safeguard national unity in Canada.
Suppose a man who is a communist or who belongs to groups that are affiliated to the communist party-they are all alike and are well known-comes along. I might mention that an important capitalist periodical of the city of Toronto, to the knowledge of everyone, boosted Tim Buck two or three weeks ago. I understand that such a periodical could have boosted Tim Buck if he had paid the regular advertising rates. How is it that men who are supposed to have a good head on their shoulders give such advertising to such a well-known communist?


Howard Charles Green: What paper was that?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend is not au courant, then I shall not reply to him.


Howard Charles Green: Is not what?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well informed about it, because he knows all. It is a large paper in the city of Toronto, and it is a capitalist one.


An hon. Member:: The Toronto Star.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I do not mean a daily, I mean a periodical. It was well known. It is a fine picture and shows Tim Buck looking like a dignitary of the Hutterite church, a nice old gentleman. This periodical is read in all the barber shops, on the cars, trains and everywhere. People read it as propaganda for Tim Buck, given to him by the capitalist press. It is nonsense. What is the use of passing legislation when the owners of such periodicals are so silly as that? If the member for Vaneouver-Quadra does not know about it, he may ask his leader and he will be informed about it.


Howard Charles Green: I believe I read the article myself. I recall it now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps that periodical has not such a large circulation in British Columbia, but it has in central Canada. I should like the minister to be kind enough to answer that question and to tell us how we shall deal with
IMr. Pouliot.]
British subjects who have been living in Canada for some time and who have never taken Canadian citizenship, and if the act applies only to those who have taken Canadian citizenship by the usual pledge. My intention in rising now is to remind you, Mr. Chairman, and the members who sit in the committee at the present time that the communists are men who believe in the denial of everything. A nihilist is a man who is indifferent, who does not believe in anything. These men believe in the negation of everything. In the first place, years ago they were called nihilists-nil means nothing-and they were creating disorder. They were guilty of murder in Europe. Afterwards they called themselves anarchists; then they called themselves communists, and they take other names. I hope that the government will see to it that these men who belong to those parties are exposed and that they are deprived of public rights. To make myself clear about it, may I say that I do not want them to have public rights that will permit them to run in municipal, provincial or federal elections of any kind. If what I have suggested is done, there will be fewer riots and disturbances of any kind in this country.


Walter Edward Harris: To answer the
hon. member for Eglinton first with respect to Freda Linton Alexander, may I say that my understanding is that she is a natural-born Canadian citizen and as such is entitled to the provisions of this act, so that when she goes to the United States and becomes subject to deportation, we must accept her back here, whether or not we should like to have her here. My understanding is that if a charge was laid against her it was dropped. In any event, she was not convicted. So far as I am aware, there is no criminal offence marked up against her. I also want to advise my hon. friend that she has in fact returned to this country and that it is an academic question whether she can come back or not.
With respect to my friend the hon. member for Sudbury, I can well understand his desire to have this question cleared up, having in mind the particular interest of the people of his riding in some of those who left to go to Yugoslavia. As I understand it, there are three classes of persons who may have taken part in the movement back to that country in 1947. There are those who were aliens at the time they went back; that is, persons who, while in Canada, had not attained citizenship. Such a person, upon his return to Yugoslavia, placed himself in the position in which he was when he first came to Canada; that is, he would have to apply as an immigrant for admission to this country. Under

those conditions, if he wished to return now, he would have to conform with our regulations and we would exercise that care and caution which we exercise in the case of every person from a foreign country seeking to be admitted to Canada. Then they might have been persons who were natural-born Canadians. They might also have been persons who were naturalized Canadian citizens. In that case they are admissible to Canada as citizens of this country. Perhaps my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have more information as to this matter than I have. But they being admissible for that reason, we would not be in a position to refuse it unless there are other grounds such as perhaps those he might indicate. When they return to Canada, they return with the status they had when they left; that is, Canadian citizenship. It might be that complaints would be made against them for their conduct abroad, which would bring them within section 19, subsection 1 (d), which refers to action abroad:
(d) if out of Canada, has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty...
I think we ought to judge these people as best we can on the circumstances as we can ascertain them, as to whether or not there has been a genuine desire to return to Canada in disillusion or whether in fact they may be persons who are coming for the purposes mentioned by the hon. member for Sudbury. I am quite certain, however, that no one would expect us to grant to a person who would come back as a confirmed exponent of principles that are contrary to our democratic processes one thing more than the law permits. I had my attention drawn only today to this article in the newspaper. For that reason I should like to have further time to consider the question asked by my hon. friend, in order to see if other light could be thrown on the subject.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not answer the question as to time asked by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was coming to that. The minister has dealt with one aspect of my question. He has indicated that those who return to Canada now, so to speak, beat the gun on this present amendment. They have ceased to be residents in a foreign country under the provisions of paragraph (d); but that does not answer the whole question. What about the effective date from which the two-year period is calculated as running? If this bill comes into force now, is the minister going to assert jurisdiction in the case of persons who have been absent from Canada two years prior to the date on which
Canadian Citizenship Act the act comes into effect or is he going to say that the two-year period begins to run from the date on which the act comes into effect?


Walter Edward Harris: I forgot to answer that part of the question, Mr. Chairman, which was also asked by the hon. member for Sudbury. I am informed that the wording of paragraph (d):
(d) has, since becoming a Canadian citizen or being naturalized in Canada, been for a period . . .
and so on, in fact relates to any two-year period since first he became a citizen of Canada, and for that reason we could exercise jurisdiction to have an inquiry made under that section as to whether or not this person had maintained substantial connections in Canada. But you will notice that under section 19 it is discretionary; that is, it is not an absolute loss of citizenship such as you have under section 18. Therefore the governor in council would, I should think, bear in mind the reason I mentioned a moment ago as to the genuineness or otherwise of the desire to return, and any other consideration which might enter into the question of whether these people should be deprived of their citizenship.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is another matter I raised this afternoon in discussing this bill on second reading, and on which I would ask the minister to comment now. It had to do with what happens to persons who are deprived of citizenship under the provisions of this amendment. I asked about the position of such persons under the Immigration Act, for instance, in relation to the whole question of deportation. Without going over the ground again, Mr. Chairman, I just point out that as to persons who are abroad now perhaps the question of deportation does not arise, but the question of re-entry might well arise. They might assert that they are residents of Canada even though they may have lost their citizenship. As to persons who are deprived of citizenship by reason of the commission of an offence, or on one of the other grounds mentioned in the clause, I think it would interest the committee very much to know what is the position of such persons in Canada immediately upon being deprived of citizenship. Are they entitled to remain and enjoy all the other benefits and protection of Canadian laws and Canadian residence even though they are no longer citizens?
Just in passing, this illustration occurs to me, because illustrations give point to some of these questions which are in our minds. There was a gentleman who was a member
1602	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act 'of this house in the last parliament for a session or two, who was convicted of an offence Under the Official Secrets Act, and was sentenced to a term of six years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. I suppose that term will be expiring before very long.
Now, Mr. Fred Rose presumably comes within the provisions of the new clause (f). He has been convicted obviously of an offence [DOT]involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty, and therefore I ask whether his Canadian citizenship can now be revoked by the minister under the provisions of this section. I think the committee would be interested in a comment of the minister on that situation, and as to the position of such a person with respect to continuing to reside in Canada and enjoy the benefit of residence and the protection of our laws today even though he has lost his Canadian citizenship.


Walter Edward Harris: The position is clearly set out in the section of the Immigration Act that my hon. friend read this afternoon; that is, those persons who can be deported under sections 41 and 42 of the Immigration Act are persons who have been convicted of the offences set out in those sections and by reason of committing those offences are designated undesirable persons and subject to deportation. It happens that the exception in sections 41 and 42 is an exception in favour of a Canadian citizen, so that those sections do not apply to a person who is a Canadian citizen.
My understanding of the sections is this, that if a person is convicted of an offence involving disloyalty and disaffection, and thereby loses his citizenship, he does not at the same time suffer the further penalty of deportation, because the act having been performed while he was a citizen he is exempted under section 41. However, if he subsequently commits any of the acts mentioned in sections 41 and 42 he then becomes subject to deportation, because he is not at that time a Canadian citizen.
Nevertheless it ought to be clear that when a person is accepted as a Canadian citizen after residing here five or more years deportation does not follow too easily upon an offence under sections 41 and 42. The other country of which he was a national or a citizen before becoming a Canadian citizen might possibly object to the subsequent deportation. That is a matter which has to be arranged on every occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the minister for his statement. I think it will come as a conclusion easily followed that, as the minister has said, if the offence was committed while the individual in question was a citizen, section 41


cannot apply to him even though subsequently he has lost his Canadian citizenship, because the opening words of section 41 are: "whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow of", and so forth. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion on this amendment has been a very useful discussion indeed. It has shed light on more subjects than the Canadian Citizenship Act. I think it has shed light where light needs to be shed on some of these provisions of the Immigration Act as well as perhaps-


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt just a moment? The speech from the throne forecast amendments to the Immigration Act, which will be before the house in due course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad to be reminded of that, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the amendments to which the minister has just referred will be amendments that will strengthen the provisions of such sections as section 41.
This afternoon I drew attention to the difference in language between section 41 of the Immigration Act and the language of the present amendment. In section 41 we have a long enumeration of offences which describe a person as an undesirable immigrant for the purposes of that act and render him liable to deportation. In the view of the law officers of the crown, how do these compare with this shorter but rather inclusive expression, "offences involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty"? Which is the broader provision, because some interesting results might flow from the difference?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure that
my hon. friend would not expect me to go into great detail as to every offence which might come within the use of the words "disaffection and disloyalty"; but most of the offences under section 41 are of the nature that might very well be so considered. For example, it is considered a matter of disaffection and disloyalty if one advocates the assassination of, or attempts to assassinate, an official of the government of Great Britain, of Canada or of the various British dominions; but I am not prepared to discuss in detail the precise definition of section 41, nor for that matter of disaffection and disloyalty since it is obviously directed to a type of offence which goes beyond treason and sedition, but stops far short of those offences which were very properly mentioned with some degree of apprehension by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Skeena. The words "disaffection and disloyalty" do cover any act such as treason,

espionage, sedition, offences under the Official Secrets Act, or some similar act directed against the welfare and security of the state.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to clear up this point I raised. In his comments on the effect of the Immigration Act and the proposed amendments the minister has not, I think, fully clarified the point that I was raising with respect to the application of this question to cases like that of Mr. Fred Rose.
I cannot, of course, anticipate, and I do not expect the minister to, the amendments to the Immigration Act that may be introduced, but I do think it is a fair question to ask if these are going to be tied in with the kind of amendment that we have before us at the present time in connection with this Canadian Citizenship Act? It would seem to me that is a very proper question to ask in the light of the discussion here today, because it seems that we are going to have anomalies otherwise where people are deprived of citizenship in this country but are free to do all the kinds of things that we most disapprove of, and for which we are seeking to punish them by the enactment of measures of the kind now before the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: If there were no amendment to the Immigration Act, such as we have discussed, the position would not be altered from what it is at the present time. The annual report of last year shows that we revoked the citizenship of 219 citizens. Some of them, admittedly, were not in this country; they were people abroad. But there are persons in Canada whose citizenship has been revoked, and who are still here in what might be described as a stateless nature, but who nevertheless are persons who are not committing any crime against our laws. For that reason they are not subject to deportation under section 41. Whether or not we amend that section in due course, there will be persons in Canada without Canadian citizenship who may have been here long enough that their own country might not accept them back, upon deportation. I do not think I should go further in suggesting what amendments there would be to the Immigration Act, until they are brought down.


Mr. Knowles:: Could the minister give a breakdown of the figure of 219? How many were out of Canada when citizenship was revoked, and how many were in Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think the annual report gives it, and I would have to get the details from the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister any notion as to what the percentage might be?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I have not.
Canadian Citizenship Act


George Alexander Drew: Before we leave this section, may I say that the discussion has been helpful in clearing up a number of points in connection with the Canadian Citizenship Act, and the purpose of the amendments before the committee.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice is engaged elsewhere because, before leaving this subject, I would have wished to point out to him that I was quite aware of the general amendments to the Criminal Code, but that this particular amendment is something of a special nature-that is, the amendment which was under consideration.
The adequacy or otherwise of the amendments now before us will very largely be determined by whether or not there is other legislation which does make it possible to deal effectively with communists in this country who are actively seeking to undermine our system. Commendable though the intent and purpose of these amendments may be, this is a very limited attempt indeed to deal with an extremely important subject at a time when we are told the very survival of our nation and of our civilization is at stake.
The minister has explained that 219 citizenships were revoked last year, of which some were already out of Canada. This is but a small fraction of the number of the people who are actively engaged in this country today in subversive activities not now satisfactorily covered by any existing law. I am not only concerned with the possibility of dealing with those born outside of Canada and outside the British commonwealth; I am concerned about the possibility of dealing effectively with citizens who were born in this country. In fact I think the citizen who was born in this country, and whose traditions were anchored here long before the others came, is a worse offender than the man who comes here and perhaps must learn something of our traditions.
I do however wish to follow the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina, when he placed some emphasis upon the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of those who have come here from other countries. It would be the desire of every member in the house to understand that nothing said here would create any impression that members of the House of Commons, in any party, have in their minds the thought that there is any lack of loyalty on the part of those who have actually made the decision to become citizens of this country. In fact, the very choice they have made in many cases creates a more conscious sense of vigorous loyalty than may perhaps exist in the minds of those who accept as a matter

Canadian Citizenship Act of course the privileges they possess as citizens of this country. Nowhere will one find more vigorous expressions of loyalty to Canada and our great institutions than in the gatherings of those people who are truly loyal to Canada, to our democratic institutions, and to the ideals we are seeking to advance in our daily lives. They, I believe, are the very ones who would welcome most warmly some evidence that it is going to be possible to deal effectively with those who are seeking to implant in Canada a kind of life that they know only too well, from their own associations, and which they know in a way we do not quite understand. Those people who have lost fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters or wives under this vile form of despotism are the ones who know best how far we should be prepared to go in preventing any of that type of activity being carried on here in Canada.
Before we pass on from this discussion of citizenship, may I once again emphasize my belief that it is very important that we have a law which will define this offence, not only so that offenders may be dealt with, but so that there may be evidence of that very concern which has been expressed, that no man shall be deprived of his rights as a citizen, except under the law.
That is happening today. The government of this country has stated, with some display of satisfaction, that it has removed from employment those suspected of communist activities. If people are going to be deprived of the right to earn their livelihood, and to be deprived of that right by the most important employer in the country, then I say that first of all there should be an offence that can be defined. I say we are actually inviting that very disregard of the right to employment and citizenship that we are saying we should preserve, when the government of the country, as the main employer, says, "We are dismissing these people because they are communists; but we cannot define 'communist activity' or activities of the nature that should be dealt with in this way."
I think it would be agreed that there have been few people more vigorous than I have been in condemning communism. But I certainly believe the government of this country should be the first to see that, if people are going to be deprived of the most basic of all rights, namely the right to work, and if they are to be deprived of the privilege of maintaining themselves and their families by their work, there shall be a real offence defined by law.
rMr. Drew.]
We want to establish the rule of law, and the government should be the first to insist upon it. So, in passing from these remarks on citizenship, at which time I had hoped we might have had some assurance that there would be an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with this subject in a wider field, I once again seek to impress upon the government my belief that if there is something which in the view of the government should deny to a man the right to employment, then the government should decide to instruct the officers of the crown to define that very offence with which they are dealing.


David Arnold Croll: I would draw the minister's
attention to a person who under the act would be deportable to a country behind the iron curtain and we would suppose that the country would refuse to accept him. Would the minister tell us what happens under those conditions?


Walter Edward Harris: I wonder if I
might be permitted to answer that on anything affecting the subject of immigration, rather than citizenship.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one point I was
asking the minister about earlier, and I have to come back to it because it is not fully clear to me. Dealing with the case of Mr. Fred Rose by way of example, again this touches on the effect of this act with respect to acts committed before it. With respect to paragraph (d) the minister has indicated that absence from Canada before this new amendment comes into effect will be treated as absence from Canada within the terms of paragraph (d). If we look at paragraph (f) we see that conviction for an offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty is also a ground for deprivation of citizenship. Is a conviction for such an offence prior to the coming into effect of this act one for which the minister may exercise the right of depriving that individual of his citizenship after the act comes into effect?


Walter Edward Harris: It is my impression that the period of two years referred to in paragraph (d) being a period of time is subject to interpretation to apply as it says to any period after the person became a Canadian citizen or was naturalized in Canada. On the other hand, paragraph (f) reading "if in Canada, has, by a court of competent jurisdiction", and so on, relates to the future and not to the past.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In other words, Mr. Fred
Rose was convicted of such an offence as is mentioned here, namely, one involving disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty, and

because his offence was committed prior to the coming into effect of this act the minister will have no right thereunder to deprive him of his citizenship because of that conviction?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman,
I am informed that the section has no retroactive effect. I do not know whether there are any other acts in Mr. Fred Rose's career which might make him subject to losing his citizenship, but in so far as that conviction is concerned I am informed it does not come within paragraph (f).


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member for Eglinton
asked a question concerning a man who had been absent from the country for a period of two or three years previous to the coming into effect of the act. He wanted to know whether this act would affect him or would the period run, and if I recall correctly the minister indicated that once we passed the act the period would then have started to run from the time that he left the country originally. I was not sure of the answer. The minister now says that it has no retroactive features. That in effect is a retroactive feature, is it not?


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps the
hon. member misunderstood me. I made it clear that I thought under paragraph (d) the two-year period can be, as it says, any two-year period since the person became a Canadian citizen. Therefore it could apply to any two-year period prior to this but paragraph (f) does not relate to any past conviction.


Jean-François Pouliot: The bill mentions that evidence must be presented as to disaffection or disloyalty to His Majesty. There must be some evidence of disloyalty or disaffection to establish that a man should lose his Canadian citizenship. Anyone may be a communist without showing exterior signs of disloyalty or disaffection to His Majesty. I wonder how one could proceed against those communists or subversive elements who do not give any exterior evidence of their disloyalty or disaffection to His Majesty and the royal family?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said
bill be read a third time?


Mr. Fraser:: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: By
leave.


Mr. Blackmore:: Next sitting of the house 80709-103
Yukon Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Next sitting.



YUKON ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 188, to amend the Yukon Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Coming into force.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just a minute. You are going too fast.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Next sitting of the house.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 189, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish the minister would say a little more than has been said on previous occasions as to what, on the face of it, seems a rather odd arrangement of government. I am not going to make too heavy weather about it. It seems in a way a curious half-and-half approach to selfgovernment, and I should like to hear a little more about it.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose of the bill is to give the population of the Northwest Territories elected representation in the territorial government by providing for the election of three members in a council of eight. The other five members will be aopointed. The details are set out in the bill and explanatory notes. I should like, however, to say something about the recent developments in the Northwest Territories which have led the government to propose the changes embodied in the bill.

Northwest Territories Act
When the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created out of the Northwest Territories in 1905, the remaining portion of the territories, although large in area, contained a very small population and was of limited economic importance. The Northwest Territories Act, 1905, therefore provided that the territories should be administered by a commissioner acting under the instructions of the governor in council or the minister of the interior, and that a council of not more than four persons might be appointed by the governor in council to assist the commissioner in the administration of the territories. Until 1921, however, no council was appointed, and during these sixteen years the commissioner of the Northwest Mounted Police acted as commissioner of the territories.
In 1921, consequent upon the increasing public interest in the territories arising out of the discovery of oil, the act was amended to provide for a council of not more than six. In the same year the deputy minister of the department of the interior was appointed commissioner of the territories, and six councillors were appointed, all being senior officials of federal departments having an interest in the territories. The system thus inaugurated in 1921 has continued to the present time, the sole change being that since 1947 a resident of the Mackenzie district of the territories, who is not a government official, has been appointed a member of the council. This change was a first step towards giving the residents of the territories representation on the council.
Generally speaking, the original population of the territories was Indian and Eskimo, the Indians being largely confined to that portion of the Mackenzie district lying south of the tree line, and the Eskimo population to the Arctic coast of the Mackenzie district and to the Keewatin and Franklin districts. In 1941 the population of the territories was 12,028 divided among the three districts by races as follows:
Mackenzie Keewatin Franklin
White (including
half-breed) .	. 2,119	86	85Indian 	. 4,322	3	9Eskimo 	. 863	1,302	3,239Total 	. 7,304	1,391	3,333
Since 1941 the increase in gold and pitchblende mining, the development of commercial fishing on Great Slave lake, and the opening up of the southern part of the territory by the Mackenzie highway, have resulted in a very substantial increase in the permanent white population. The estimated population of the territories at the end of 1949, compiled 

from the most reliable sources available, indicates that the population by races at the end of 1949 was as follows:
Mackenzie Keewatin Franklin White (including
half-breed) ..	5,525	53	120Indian	
4,220	3	9Eskimo	
1,627	1,525	3,057Total	
11,372	1,581	3,186
In recognition of the substantial increase in the permanent white population of the Mackenzie district, the residents of that portion of the Mackenzie district lying east of the 109th meridian of west longitude were given representation in this house in the last redistribution of seats.
The government considers that the time has now arrived when provision should be made for elected representation in the territorial council. A fully elected council and its logical corollary, an administration located within the territories, seems to be a proper objective at which to aim. I do not feel, however, that it would be wise to achieve it in one step. To begin with, the territories are still greatly dependent upon the financial support of the federal government. Thus, in the fiscal year 1947-48 some $7,758,865.20 was spent in the territories from federal funds, while the revenue accruing to all federal departments from the territories was only $640,323.44 or about 8 per cent. Similarly in the fiscal year 1948-49 some $9,778,646.20 was spent in the territories from federal funds, while the revenue accruing to all federal departments from the territories was $719,517.98; and in the fiscal year 1949-50 some $7,963,388.72 was spent in the territories from federal funds, while the revenue accruing to all federal departments from the territories was $720,073.90 or about 9 per cent. I should think the people of Canada generally would expect the people of the territories to be capable of bearing a larger share of total government expenses in the territories before they can reasonably expect to have a fully elective council.
The present proposal, by conferring upon the population of the territories the opportunity to elect three members of the territorial council, will, I hope, be a step toward ultimate fully elected government. The length of this transitional period will depend upon factors affecting the rate of development of the population and resources.
There are several other minor amendments in the bill, which are fully dealt with in the explanatory notes. I will only mention one of these. It is proposed to add to section 34 of the Northwest Territories Act

a subsection giving to the governor in council power to appoint officers for the due administration of justice. At the present time section 10, subsection 1, paragraph (1) of the act gives to the commissioner in council authority to define the powers, duties and obligations of sheriffs; but paragraph (j) of the same subsection specifically excludes from the powers of the commissioner in council authority to appoint such judicial officers. The volume of judicial business in the territories now makes it necessary to appoint sheriffs. The proposed amendment provides the necessary authority for their appointment. This will bring the Northwest Territories Act into line with the Yukon Act, section 57 of which confers a similar power upon the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-"Council".
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am grateful for the statement by the minister, which added a great deal to our knowledge, but there are still a few points of interest I would like to raise. In the first place I take it that while the minister refers to certain communities like Yellowknife and so on, there is no municipal organization; or perhaps the minister will answer that point later, because I am going to ask several questions. I was interested and greatly surprised to learn the very small revenue coming from that area, and I noted the remark by the minister that we might hope and perhaps expect it to increase. I suggest that he might give us a little more information on that point. Then can anything be said as to the wishes of the local people, and their feeling about this?
I am putting several questions while I am on my feet so we will not be bobbing up and down. Is there any analogy in the situation here to that which existed when the provinces were set up in 1905? Of course this community is immeasurably less developed than the southern portion of the area was, but can the minister say anything more on that? One other thing is this. Could the minister outline a little further just how this composite body will work? I think I understand much better than I did before his feeling that we not only have to move gradually but that at the moment we have to keep what I suppose may be described as a certain control through the appointed majority, until they have worked into the way of managing their own affairs. I wish he would say a word or two more as to just how the mechanism works; that is 80709-103J
Northwest Territories Act to say, can he give us a little more information as to the familiarity of those here with the territories. Something was said about that last night. How does the minister visualize the co-operation between the elected and non-elected representatives? Can anything be said as to the method by which the election is to take place? I do not think he has indicated to us anything about the voting qualifications.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, during the past summer, 1950, I took the opportunity of visiting the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I spent as much time in both territories as I was able to do, and visited as many of the centres of population as possible as well as a number of outlying areas. I was quite impressed with the sense of responsibility of the people living in the north, and the great pride they are developing in the territories. Many people were asked about this matter of government, and I came to the conclusion that the time had come to extend some privileges to them in electing representatives to the territorial council. I believe that the feeling of the local people is that this is a step in the right direction. It is natural to expect that they feel the government should go the whole way just as quickly as it can. Undoubtedly there are people in the Northwest Territories who are of the opinion that there should be a fully elected council at the present time, and that this measure does not go far enough.
On the other hand I think the body of responsible opinion there is that, so long as the taxpayers of Canada are paying the great bulk of the expenditures in the territories, the process should be a gradual one. They recognize this as being about the right course of action for the present. The department, being responsible for the administration of the Northwest Territories, has tried to move in the direction of what one might term democracy just as quickly as possible. As any area has shown ability to administer its own affairs, appropriate responsibilities have been passed on to it. At the moment there is the Yellowknife administrative council which is a partially elected' council administering the affairs of the Yellowknife administrative district. There is also a fully elected school board in the Yellowknife district. In Hay River there is a partially elected council which administers its own affairs. Both these administrative districts do an excellent job of looking after their own affairs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Without outside money assistance?

Northwest Territories Act


Robert Henry Winters: Not entirely, but to a great extent. Where outside assistance is necessary, it has been given to the local administrative council in the form of grants which they administer. They have done that with a good sense of responsibility. I believe that answers the questions of the hon. member, but if there are others I would be glad to answer them.


Mr. Hodgson:: There has been an increase in population in that district. How does the increase in population compare with the citizens who have been there for a number of years?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not sure that I fully understood the question. Will the hon. member repeat it?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister gave a few figures showing how many whites and how many others there were in the territories. How does the increase in population compare with the ones who were there a few years back?


Robert Henry Winters: A breakdown of the present population, to compare with the population figures I gave for the year 1941, is as follows: for the whites, including half-breeds, in the Mackenzie district, Keewatin and Franklin in that order, 5,525, 53 and 120; Indians, 4,220, 3 and 9; Eskimos, 1,627, 1,525, 3,057, or a total of 11,372, 1,581, and 3,186. In other words, the total number of whites in the Mackenzie district now is estimated at 5,525 as against 2,119 in 1941.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Can the minister estimate the increase in revenue for the future?


Robert Henry Winters: That is difficult to forecast, Mr. Chairman. I gave the revenue for three successive years, but I do not believe the house would expect me to estimate the revenues for the future.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned the Eskimos and Indians. Will they be allowed to vote? They are Canadian citizens, and the bill says that Canadian citizens are allowed to vote.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the bill confers upon the commissioner and council the authority to establish the terms of elections, and to say who will vote. In the 1949 federal election the Eskimos did not vote but the Indians did. Since that time there has been a change in the act which has made it possible for the Eskimos to be considered as voters. I have every reason to believe that both

Eskimos and Indians living in the territories will be eligible to vote for these prospective elected representatives.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I ask the minister if any thought has been given to transportation for that area? I refer to railway transportation particularly. There is a general feeling that there should be an extension of the railway from Prince George, British Columbia, in a northeasterly direction ultimately tapping the southern part of the Northwest Territories. One plan was that this railway should contact another railway, possibly it is the Hudson Bay railway, and in that way the southern part of the territory would be given -access to the Pacific coast, Prince Rupert and Vancouver. Has that been given any serious thought?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the chief modes of transportation are by water and aircraft. There is one good highway into the heart of the district, the Mackenzie highway, which runs from Edmonton to H-ay River on the south shore of Great Slave lake. There are also a number of roads for mining purposes in isolated areas. To contemplate a comprehensive system of highways or railways is a little beyond our present capacity. As the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River said last night, -there is considerable development work being carried on in the Pine Point area on the south shore of Great Slave lake. If the prospect develops the way it gives promise of doing now, there is a possibility of having the railhead extended to Pine Point, and a considerable development resulting in that area.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have had inquiries from people in my own riding with regard to parcel post up to places in the Northwest Territories; for instance, up to Aklavik. These people said that the rates up into that part of the country are so high that it is almost impossible to send a parcel of any kind in there. I wondered if there was not some way in which that service could be subsidized or arranged, because there are missionaries up there and something should be done to help them. It is cheaper to send a parcel over to some European countries than it is to send one to some parts of our own Canada. I do not think that is the way it should be.


Robert Henry Winters: That is something that I shall be glad to discuss with my colleague the Postmaster General.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I heard the minister correctly when he was explaining the reason for not having more democratic procedure or more elected members of the council, he said

that the reason was in effect that as the taxpayers of Canada paid the greater part of the cost of administration of the area, the power should rest in effect with the appointed members of the council who are in the majority. I cannot consider that as quite a valid argument because, after hearing the minister make that statement, I was thinking of my own province in which there are quite large areas in certain districts where the cost of administration is far greater than the amount of revenue received, yet the people in that area receive the franchise. I should like the minister to give a further explanation of that matter. I also notice in the bill that in addition to the maj ority of the members of the council being appointed, the commissioner in council prescribes the qualifications of the persons who shall vote and, according to the bill, who shall be elected to council. I should like to ask the minister to explain to the committee why the members of the House of Commons could not determine in this legislation who is qualified to vote.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the way it should be.


Robert Henry Winters: It is true that any good administration tries to treat with the greatest equality the people for whom it is responsible. The Yukon territory has been set up as such, and is a responsibility of the federal government; and the federal government is doing its best to extend to the people who live in the Northwest Territories the same privileges as are available to people in other parts of Canada. I think perhaps the hon. member for Kootenay West is confusing local autonomy with the matter of general rights and privileges as Canadian citizens. There is no attempt to deny these people anything by virtue of the fact that they have not fully representative government. I think perhaps the fact of the matter is that they are better off and are getting more from the taxpayers generally than if they were given fully elected government at this time and required to stand more on their own feet.


Mr. Simmons:: In the matter of parcel post rates into the Mackenzie river district referred to by my hon. friend, I might say that I have made representations to the Post Office Department for quite some time now, that the matter is under investigation and that I am hoping for a favourable reply.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Something certainly should be done about it.


Mr. Wright:: I am not satisfied with the minister's explanation as to why the appointed members of the council should decide who is going to vote in elections in
Northwest Territories Act the territory. It seems to me that we as a parliament here should be determining that matter instead of leaving it to some appointees of the government. It seems to me that would be the more democratic way to do it. As it stands, the qualifications for voting will be set by the appointees of the government who are civil servants of the government. It does not seem to me to be democratic to give to civil servants of the government the authority to determine who shall vote in an area of Canada. It seems to me that we should accept that responsibility as a parliament. Has the minister any explanation as to why we should give to appointees of the government, civil servants, the right to determine who shall vote and who shall not vote in a certain area of this country?


Robert Henry Winters: This is following the same pattern that has been followed in the Yukon Territory where the regulations governing voting are laid down by the commissioner in council. Under the Northwest Territories Act the government of the territories is assigned to the commissioner in council which passes ordinances which are tabled in the House of Commons. They are also subject to veto by the federal government. To that extent therefore the House of Commons here and the federal government have the final responsibility in any regulations that are laid down by the commissioner in council.


Mr. Knight:: There are certain restrictions in the second clause. A person is not entitled to vote at an election unless he is a Canadian citizen, et cetera. In other words, there are certain things not within the discretion of the council and there are certain things which are within the discretion of the council. I should like to know what are the things that are within the discretion of the council, if these things are not; that is to say, that a person has to have attained the age of twenty-one, that he has to be a Canadian citizen, and that he has to be ordinarily resident in the territories for a period of at least twelve months immediately prior to the date of the election. If those things are not within the discretion of the council, what are the other qualifications of the voter which are within the discretion of such council? It is fairly well defined in this bill who shall be privileged to vote. Yet we are told that the final choice of the voter, if I may use that expression, is to be in the hands of the commissioner in council. I wonder what things are left. As a matter of fact, that is what worries me. I would rather see the

Northwest Territories Act whole thing left in the hands of the commissioner in council. But it describes these certain things and then we are left in the dark as to the certain other things that the council can decide. What are those things?


Robert Henry Winters: The general limitations for voting are laid down in the act, as the hon. member says. But there are likely to arise from time to time specific instances with which the council might wish to deal. It was felt that ,to follow the pattern of the Yukon Act, the section should phovide the council with the opportunity to make regulations as they see fit with respect to certain matters that have a bearing on who should vote and who should not vote.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister has not made it plain to my satisfaction. I wish he could suggest what some of those certain matters might be. That is what I am concerned about. If you have those qualifications as to residence, age and citizenship, then I want to know on what ground the commissioner in council would be justified in turning down a man's claim to vote. That is what I want to know.


Mr. Ferrie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Let us first have an answer to the question that has been asked.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If the minister is going to answer, could we have his answer now so that the thing will be coherent?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if I might have that question repeated, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I did not hear what the
minister said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He wants the question repeated.


Robert Henry Winters: I did not hear the question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The question is this: What
are some of the qualifications for a voter other than those mentioned in section 8A (2), namely, that a person is qualified to vote at an election if he is, (1) a Canadian citizen; (2) has attained th eage of 21 years; and (3) has been ordinarily resident in the territories for a period of not less than twelve months immediately prior to the date of the election.
If these are the grounds laid down by this act which permit a man to vote .then I ask the minister what are the other grounds upon which the commissioner in council may
IMr. Knight.]
refuse someone in that territory the right to vote? The bill says:
Subject to subsection two, the commissioner in council may prescribe the qualifications of those entitled to vote at an election of members to the council.
Then in the next clause the act itself prescribes those qualifications, but we are left in the dark as to what are the qualifications, or the lack of qualifications, upon which the commissioner in council may refuse such a vote. The thing is a deep, dark mystery. What are the qualifications that should leave the selection of the voters in the hands of the commissioner in council? May I say that, so far as I am concerned, I would not be prepared to leave the commissioner in council any discretion as to who shall or who shall not have a vote, but that this parliament should lay down the qualifications in this legislation, as an attempt has been made to lay down certain qualifications of a voter in clause 2. I hope I have made it clear.


Robert Henry Winters: There are certain other
qualifications of voters such as sanity, and I would imagine that matters such as imprisonment might be considered. There is a judge of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and I understand that judges do not normally vote. Being charged with the responsibility for administering the territory, the commissioner in council should have the opportunity to deal with specific matters which are not defined in this general act.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it then to be within the
discretion of the commissioner in council? Are these two things to be within the discretion of the commissioner in council, first of all whether a man is sane, and second, whether or not a judge shall vote? If these are two of the qualifications, then I should like to know it. Put them in this legislation and then we shall know it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: My constituency goes right up to the Northwest Territories. I want fully to endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River that everyone should be elected even though it is the Northwest Territories that are mentioned now. I fully endorse that democratic system of doing things, no matter how sparse is the population.
I should like to say this. Some years ago great men in eastern Canada looked at the west and they said, in developing the west we must have a railroad. It is time that the people of Canada looked to the north, and it is time that the northwest of Canada had a

railroad. The amount of wealth that is in that north country can only be handled by railroad facilities. There has been some talk, and I understand action is going on now, to put a railroad up to Lynn lake. That could go from Lynn lake north of Reindeer lake, north to Athabaska and up to Fort Smith to tap the minerals south of Great Slave lake and out to Prince George. In this part of the world that sounds like something ridiculous, but I want to assure you that it is not ridiculous. It is time that the Northwest Territories were tapped. It is time that we found out what wealth is in that country, and it is time that the people of Canada began to realize what advantages there are up in that country. On that railroad it is suggested that you could find everything from agriculture, mining and fishing right down to the part of civilization that has now made a great name for itself in the north, namely, Flin Flon. You could start from Flin Flon and do as I suggest and even if we do not get anything else done we should have a survey made.
I should like to point out to the minister that if he wants to make the Northwest Territories the first thing he has to do is to see that they get transportation in there.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Percy Ellis Wright: I still do not see why we should leave this matter of the qualifications of voters to a non-elected body. Has the minister any objections to the qualifications that we have in the Dominion Elections Act applying to voters in the Yukon? It seems to me that they apply to them with regard to dominion elections, and the same qualifications might apply in the Northwest Territories. There you have something that we have agreed on. We have agreed on certain qualifications for voters in the dominion elections, and I can see no reason why those qualifications should not apply in the elections in the Northwest Territories for councillors. Has the minister any objection to the qualifications that we have in the Dominion Elections Act being applied?


Robert Henry Winters: The government of the Northwest Territories by the commissioner and his council is somewhat analogous to the government of a province by the provincial premier and his government. The provincial legislative body can give consideration to matters of voting in provincial elections, and following the pattern of the Yukon, where roughly a similar form of government exists, voting qualifications are fixed by the commissioner in council. Since the commissioner and his council are responsible for the
Northwest Territories Act administration of the territories, I think that matters other than those defined by this act should be left to their determination.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid the minister has given away his whole case now. I think his explanation has only led him into deep water. He says that the government of the Northwest Territories by the council is analogous to the government of a province by the premier and his government. The minister completely overlooked the fact that the provincial legislatures are sovereign, and it is the legislatures of the provinces that lay down these rules as to qualifications of voters.
The governing body responsible for the government of the Northwest Territories is this parliament, and this parliament simply appoints administrators in that area and a council with certain defined and delegated powers-because remember these are delegated powers, nothing more-but the rights of the provinces are not delegated. They are sovereign legislatures deriving their powers under the constitution. For the minister to say that because the provinces with their sovereign legislatures have the right to prescribe the qualifications of their voters, a body appointed under federal authority by the government should have that same power, seems to me to be just reducing the whole matter to a hopeless absurdity.
The minister has completely-and I regret to say this-completely misunderstood the matter. It is parliament that is responsible for the administration of the Northwest Territories. And if parliament is going to delegate some of its governing functions to a council up there, and is going to say that part of the governing body is to be elected, and then goes on to specify some of the qualifications of the voters, then surely it would be a most extraordinary thing for parliament to stop there after defining some of the qualifications of voters, and then leave it to others who enjoy the delegated powers from parliament, through the government, to specify the qualifications, or at least some of the qualifications of voters.
If it is possible for parliament to specify some of those qualifications, then certainly parliament can specify all. It would be an extraordinary thing to give to these persons possessing powers delegated by parliament the right to specify qualifications for voters who are going to vote on candidates for election to that governing body up there. That would be a most extraordinary thing. I suggest the minister should reconsider the whole matter.

Northwest Territories Act
If parliament can specify some of these qualifications, then certainly parliament is competent to specify all of them; and it would be a dangerous departure from principle if parliament did not go on to specify them all.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Before we proceed further may I point out that we are discussing section 1, but that the hon. member has bqen discussing section 3. Shall section 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Instructions.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the section says:
The commissioner shall administer the government of the territories under instructions from time to time given by the governor in council-
And the "governor in council" is the governor of the Northwest Territories.
-or the minister.


Robert Henry Winters: The governor in council is not the commissioner of the Northwest Territories.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that mean the governor in council here?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The section is not too clear, because it says in the preceding clause that "council" shall mean the council of the Northwest Territories. Nevertheless I accept the minister's statement.
What, then, is the authority of the commissioner? It says that -
-the commissioner shall administer the government of the territories under instructions from time to time given by the governor in council or the minister.
Well, is he just a rubber stamp, to take instructions from the governor in council here in Ottawa? What is the scope of the body we are setting up? I am asking that question, now that I understand the governor in council is not the governor of the Northwest Territories.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is moving along historical lines. For some years provinces have been set up in the western part of this land. It is not long ago that the people of the Northwest Territories were being taxed, although they did not have representation at all. I am referring to that part of the Northwest Territories now under discussion.
This is a step forward. It is a step that was taken in connection with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is a matter of record

here. But at the same time I believe the people in the Northwest Territories will very soon desire autonomy and absolute control of their own affairs, just as those other provinces have desired in times gone by. This is a step in that direction.
I believe hon. members would agree that autonomy would be a splendid thing for the Northwest Territories at such time as the population has been somewhat increased, transportation facilities made available, an immigration policy initiated, and the course followed which was the pattern in connection with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it shall not carry. I would like at least an answer to my question.


Robert Henry Winters: Section 2 in the bill is the same as the old section 2, the only change being in the name of the minister from that of the minister of the interior to the minister here defined, who, in the definition section, is set out as the Minister of Resources and Development. That is the only change.
The functions of this body about which the hon. member was talking are basically legislative, whereas the functions of the governor in council, the minister and the commissioner are basically executive. That is the relationship between the functions of the two bodies in question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Council.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, for reasons already stated I move in amendment:
That section 3 be amended by deleting therefrom subsection (1) of section 8A thereof and by renumbering subsections (2) and (3) of section 8A as subsections (1) and (2) respectively.
I have already stated my reasons, the chief of which is that I do not think the appointees of this or any other government should lay down the qualifications as to who should or should not be entitled to vote. I think that job should be done by the House of Commons, completely, as indeed it must be done in subsection 2 of section 8A.


Robert Henry Winters: I might say that the amendment is not acceptable, in that it is not in keeping with the spirit of the act, nor is it in conformity with what we are trying to do in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the spirit of the act?


Robert Henry Winters: What the government is attempting to do is to extend to the body

designated to administer the affairs of the Northwest Territories more responsibilities, by giving it elected representation.
We are seeking to put into its hands more authority to run its own affairs, and to determine how its affairs should be run. By this amendment we would be taking away from the council of the Northwest Territories certain powers which we think it right and proper that it should have. I submit therefore that it is a step away from the direction in which we are seeking to go in the measure before the house at this time.


Percy Ellis Wright: I disagree with what the minister has just said because, in effect, this is what he is doing: He is trying to do by the back-door method something which apparently he is not prepared to do in the house, namely to define the qualification of voters. He appoints the majority on the commission, and therefore he can lay down the control of qualifications. If we are going to control qualifications, then we should do it by a method which is apparent to everyone, instead of doing it by controlling the number of appointed representatives on the commission, and therefore by that method say who shall be qualified to vote. If a majority of them were elected, then there would be some justification for the minister's argument, but when a majority are appointed I cannot see where his argument holds at all.
Amendment (Mr. Knight) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 51.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister and the government have not accepted the last suggested amendment to section 3. There is a population of 16,000 and the revenue has been increasing in that area. Over a long period of years the people have shown a lot of ability, especially in voting. For many years they sent the Hon. George Black here and now they have sent the present member for Yukon-Mackenzie River. If these two men are any example-and I think they are -of the calibre of people they have in that country, they certainly are capable of controlling their own vote. The first clause says that there shall be a council of the Northwest Territories consisting of eight members, three of whom shall be elected to represent electoral districts and five of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council. Three out of eight does not give these people very much representation. The minister also said that there were three electoral districts, Mackenzie, Keewatin and Franklin, and they are governed by the commissioner and deputy commissioner. Therefore there are really
Northwest Territories Act ten on that council, and only three representatives out of the ten are to be elected.
I think the government should give these people more of a lead than that because it does not seem that they have any representation whatsoever. I move as follows:
That the word "three" in line four and the word "five" in the fifth line be deleted, and that there shall be substituted the word "six" in the fourth line and the word "two" in the fifth line.
The section will then read as follows:
There shall be a council in the Northwest Territories consisting of eight numbers, six of whom shall be elected to represent electoral districts, and two of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the vote is taken, may I say that I support the amendment for various reasons expressed by previous speakers. I think, Mr. Chairman, if you read the explanation of the legislation given in the bill it adds further to the reasons for supporting the amendment. On the page giving the explanation of the section we find the following:
The new section 8 provides for a council of eight members, three of whom will be elected and five appointed. Members of the council are, with one exception, senior government officials. If the bill is passed it is proposed to follow the practice of appointing senior government officials to sit on the council. The functions of the council which are set out in sections 9 and 10 of the Northwest Territories Act are primarily legislative; however, the commissioner may refer to the council for advice on matters of policy.
In my conception that is government backwards. I thought the legislative function was performed by councils, and commissioners and administrators simply gave effect to policies. I should like the minister to explain the explanatory note in the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Those in favour-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me. Would the minister explain the meaning of that explanation?	*


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I think the explanation is fairly self-evident. Moreover, in the second reading stage the statement I made indicated quite clearly that what we are trying to do now is to move in the direction of an elected council as quickly as possible. Prior to this time there has been no elected representation on the council at all. We are seeking now to make it possible for the council to have three elected representatives, and I find it very difficult indeed to understand these criticisms that we are not trying

Northwest Territories Act to extend a measure of democracy in the government of the Northwest Territories.
Amendment (Mr. Hodgson) negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 59.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up first the government notice of motion to set up a special committee concerning veterans affairs. Then we will take up third reading of Bill No. 172, third reading of Bill No. 188 and third reading of Bill No. 189. Then we will move to go into committee of supply and call four departments, resources and development, national revenue, fisheries and labour.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 4, 1951